Sounds to me like you are repeating one specific company's talking-head propaganda, forgetting that every other company out there doesn't agree with that guy.
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if GW2 hits the RMT model within a year or two of launch, especially in today's economy
Then please give me all the examples you can think of, of financially sucessful MMOs, that still don't have RMT. I can only think of one... Rift and there's no telling what they'll do with their game a year from now.
Well I could waste my time arguing this, I'll just link everyone to this video, of someone else arguing this point across.
That's the first time i've watched that video and i find mysef agreeing with him on most of the points. However, i'm not sure if it's too late in the game for the genre to make the switch. We as the consumers may have let it get to the point where subscriptions + expansion costs are the norm and even expected but the development side costs have also risen with that trend. Not because it costs more for the hardware and software but because of the amount of money generated through the sub models pushing the salaries and expected profits through the roof.
Unfortunately Anet is the only company i know of to go the B2P route and if others had adopted the same method then things might be changing right now towards that bias, but i think GW2 will be the last hope for it to be something of the future. While it seems to have worked for GW1 sadly that game wasn't your typical MMO but rather was more in line with the lobby based game such as LOL but with a few MMO features added in. If they can prove that it generates a similar amount of profit to sub based games and even f2p cash shop based ones & can get and keep a playerbase in large numbers with this game then it will set not only an example to other MMO creators but also alter the expectations of the consumers.
Maybe I expect too much of us the customers to buck a trend but it's always nice to have a little faith.
One last thought, even if it does sway the consumers there isnt a likelyhood of this model being adopted anytime in the next year due to already in place plans for future MMO's so personaly i think it wouldn't become more widespread until 2013/14 for games that can afford to switch strategies.
Frankly I can only see sandbox MMOs, 2 to 3 years from now still embracing the subscription fee. With so many F2P options and one major B2P option; the general public (that includes people who don't frequent forums) just won't see the point in having to part with $15/£9 every month, just to have a similar experience they can get for a couple of bucks whenever they feel like it. A lot of these F2P games are even offering very competitive deals, like Firefall & End of Nations offering the full game and only limiting the player in cosmetic options.
Personally I want GW2 to be successful and I believe it will, at least in the MMO world. However for the B2P payment model to catch on, it will need to generate a major buzz among the general public, similar to how Minecraft did.
Frankly I can only see sandbox MMOs, 2 to 3 years from now still embracing the subscription fee. With so many F2P options and one major B2P option; the general public (that includes people who don't frequent forums) just won't see the point in having to part with $15/£9 every month, just to have a similar experience they can get for a couple of bucks whenever they feel like it. A lot of these F2P games are even offering very competitive deals, like Firefall & End of Nations offering the full game and only limiting the player in cosmetic options.
Personally I want GW2 to be successful and I believe it will, at least in the MMO world. However for the B2P payment model to catch on, it will need to generate a major buzz among the general public, similar to how Minecraft did.
I agree it really relies on GW2 being very successful. I admit that i don't mind paying the 15 bucks or £9/10 as it is here, but that's because i'm so used to it after all these years. Afterall we pay over the odds for so many things in our life that it is an accepted fact that we work to line the pockets of people who have more than we do. I'm getting past the point of being tired of that and heading to peed off. However i do see your estimate of only sandbox games being sub based in 2-3 years a bit optimistic, personally i'd say that would be the time frame for the model to be catching on rather than it being the norm.
It will be very interesting to see SW:TOR and GW2 side by side with total players online numbers 6-12 months after release and even though I doubt we'd get the information, the total amount of projected/past income over that period.
It will be very interesting to see SW:TOR and GW2 side by side with total players online numbers 6-12 months after release and even though I doubt we'd get the information, the total amount of projected/past income over that period.
Yeah, I'd also be interested in seeing those kind of numbers, about 6 months after the release of Guild Wars 2. Because with so many people planning to play SW:TOR like a typical Bioware singleplayer RPG, I just don't see how that game will be able to retain the majority of it's subscribers. Especially in the wake of an equally good subscription-less MMO. However I was wonder what effect the lack of the subscription fee or the gear-grinding endgame treadmill, will have on the playerbase numbers and whether GW2 will be able to keep the majority of its players coming back, from time to time.
and whether GW2 will be able to keep the majority of its players coming back, from time to time.
I'm about to get off and go get drunk (we're half way there already), it's been a hard week , but that struck a chord. If the game is as good as it looks to be shaping up then i think the number of players returning over time will be significantly higher than those in P2P games.
I've been playing MMO's since around 2004, when i finally had some time to find out PC's weren't just devils put on this earth to take up my free time with work related nonsense. Since then there have been an MMO or two that i still return to for a month or two each year even though they are old. I can't imagine how different the return rate would be in general if a subscription barrier wasnt in place. I know i would reinstall and try out games i was on the fence about in the past instead of only those i knew i enjoyed.
Good post OP. And a little late. Not much, but by about 6 weeks.
The answer between B2P, P2P and F2P was given 6 weeks ago by Rob Pardo.
Give the players a real money auction house so they can build a real money economy in their rpg's.
Like Pardo said, you don't need to create a cash shop filled with buy to win created gear from the publisher.
You let the players decide what to sell, how to sell (gold or money) and buy within the game. Of course Diablo is a perfect game for this, as it is co op hack/slash and will have one global region wide trade market with at least a 1 million player market per region. But with rather small changes it could work in the alternative worlds we play in. Players will be playing for real money. Imagine the already successful carrot/gear chase being supplemented with a win-gear value for the players.
Pardo concluded his power point by stating that with such a system based on real value for mats/gear, players will simply go on playing even being capped and fully geared. Tldr: P2EM. Play to earn money. A huge revolution tucked away in a little game called Diablo3 (appropriate name). I think the last days of subscription based games are counted within 2 years.
Well the problem with this kind of model, albeit a nice idea, is the legal issue of asking kids, some of them under 15 years of age, to spend money on a virtual world.
I'm pretty sure that here in Australia this would not be allowed without some kind of discussion in Parliament first. We're still fighting to have a R18+ rating installed for games so that adult games can be released, which you may remember was directly the cause of the late release of Fallout 3. Australian laws prohibited the game, so to be nice to their Aussie fans the game was delayed and some of the content changed before it was finally released worldwide.
The reason why GW1 works so well is also because of their population. If you look at it most of them are adults and have access to something called a credit card. If you look around at the community in GW1 you can see a lot of them have outfits they bought from GW1 cash shop which requires real life money. The community is also more friendly and actually want to see GW1 continue to thrive so they don't mind spending $5-$10 dollars on a cash shop once in a while. I myself bought an outfit. It looks good and I know it is being spent on a game I know will always be maintained by a company that cares about their player's opinions. In GW2 they will also have a cash shop and I'm hoping that the community that there is in GW1 will also be there in GW2.
guild war is one of a kind. pretty much the only b2p mmorpg. So it manage to sell alot of copy. And the only way it survive is it sells alot of copy.
I doubt it'll be that big if it have competition.
Besides it's not about survival. It's about making profit for the game company. Many crapy asian f2p games are making way more money than guild wars.
There's nothing wrong with b2p model. It's just a choice. And the main thing is people prefer b2p model because it's cheap, not because of any other reason.
I see very little difference between buy to play and Freemium except for 2 points.
Buy to Play has a barrier of entry and requires free trial offers as a marketing too. On one hand this makes promotions more difficult, but it could be having a positive affect on community because the non-spenders are excluded.
Buy to Play provides access to the whole game (minus expansion packs) for the purchase price.
Freemium has no barrier of entry so world populations go up. This makes marketing easier, but might be having a negative impact on community because the non-spenders are welcome all the time.
Freemium provides access to part of the game, and access to content is purchased a-la-carte.
I have to admit, I'm more of a fan for buy to play. It's like getting a lifetime subscription (value $350) for the price of the box ($35 or so). Having to buy bank space, etc. isn't much of annoyance considering the price break.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
I don't really have the time to play a MMO everyday for a few months. So I would like to hop on a game randomly without having to worry if I'm even able to log-in or the worst, paying a monthly fee just to keep the door open and feel that I HAVE to play the game coz my sub is running.
For example GW1 series. If you want to be viable in PvP you require every single expansion. If you want the ultimate fun you require every single expansion.
It's a lot of money, maybe not now since it's lowered in prize but when it all came out.
I assume same thing will happen to GW 2.
Still works out cheaper than a monthly sub
This is what ppl dont understand, After 4 months of subscription, they basicly pay for second box of the game and they almost never get content even comparable to that price.
For example GW1 series. If you want to be viable in PvP you require every single expansion. If you want the ultimate fun you require every single expansion.
It's a lot of money, maybe not now since it's lowered in prize but when it all came out.
I assume same thing will happen to GW 2.
Still works out cheaper than a monthly sub
This is what ppl dont understand, After 4 months of subscription, they basicly pay for second box of the game and they almost never get content even comparable to that price.
True, but that was never the deal offerd was it?
The deal was 'You buy the box, enjoy as many hours gameplay as you want as part of that price, and then if you still want to you can pay us £2.50 a week to continue to play the ungated content for as many hours as you like, unrestricted by anything save yourself. In that time we will provide you with customer support, a reliable infra structure, some additional content, and game improvements'.
I see very little difference between buy to play and Freemium except for 2 points.
Buy to Play has a barrier of entry and requires free trial offers as a marketing too. On one hand this makes promotions more difficult, but it could be having a positive affect on community because the non-spenders are excluded.
Buy to Play provides access to the whole game (minus expansion packs) for the purchase price.
Freemium has no barrier of entry so world populations go up. This makes marketing easier, but might be having a negative impact on community because the non-spenders are welcome all the time.
Freemium provides access to part of the game, and access to content is purchased a-la-carte.
I have to admit, I'm more of a fan for buy to play. It's like getting a lifetime subscription (value $350) for the price of the box ($35 or so). Having to buy bank space, etc. isn't much of annoyance considering the price break.
B2P+Trial *is* F2P.
The definition for both is "we're gonna let you play some, but you'll need to pay to play all."
The main differences being that B2P+Trial typically gives you a lot less for free, and also F2P tends to involve a lot more individual purchases.
Here's hoping the ridiculous success of League of Legend's Uncompromising F2P + AAA Gameplay combination convinces more companies to go that route.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Good arguments, and all I am saying is: it's expensive to host an mmo with decent bandwidth.. Not just the bandwidth but the space and employees to handle it, etc..
You can argue that all you want, but I know this personally from having spent years working in that specific industry .
Now, I've played GW1, and I can see how their instancing and such can offset some of that - the game wasn't designed like your traditional mmo, though.. I don't see something like WoW or EvE managing to do that heh.
There's a reason everyone else doesn't use the B2P model for their mmos lol
PC Games: "How do you plan to do this? Building such a complex world which is shared by all players without having monthly fees?"
Strain:(laughing) "A very good question! Interestingly many people believe that the completely instantiated world was the reason for Guild Wars 1 to not need monthly fees. This is completely wrong! The existence or lack of a persistent world is totally unrelated to the running expenses which are needed to maintain an online roleplaying game."
PC Games: "What do you mean by that?"
Strain: "Really important are the innovative technologies which we developed for Guild Wars 1. They allow us to keep the running costs very low which then results in the huge advantage for the player: the absence of fees. We continue with that principle for Guild Wars 2: as soon as the game is available, we will begin our work on new content. Such content for which the player is free to decide if he wants to have it or not. Maybe that will be add-ons or complete campaigns or online-extensions with costs, we don't know. But one thing is very certain: we will again have in Guild Wars 2 the comprehensive support our fans are already familiar with!"
Sounds to me like you are repeating one specific company's talking-head propaganda, forgetting that every other company out there doesn't agree with that guy.
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if GW2 hits the RMT model within a year or two of launch, especially in today's economy
Man, is it REALLY possible that people know so little about GW2? ROFLMAO They're not going to "hit the RMT".....they're releasing with a cash shop......it's not coming later. How do you think they're going to earn extra money? And....I'm perfectly fine with that since I don't have to pay a monthly fee. Your mileage may vary. If you don't like it, don't play. I don't think I'll miss you, tbh. You'll be having fun in some OTHER game....big deal.
Furthermore, I think Jeff Strain knows about the game he's developing. If he says it's not prohibitively expensive, I believe him. What difference does it make, really. They have determined a way to make it happen for THEIR game. I don't really care what some OTHER "talking head" has to say. Interesting but the other "talking heads" are pretty much silent on the matter of overhead costs. I wonder why? Could it be they don't want their subscribers to realize that they're being shafted? After all.....WoW, EQ2 (and probably some others).....they both have subs AND cash shops.
They're already charging as much for the box as they would if there were to be no sub, in the $50 to $60 dollar range. To charge a sub on top of that is $15 more for an average of an unknown number of months, but let's call it two. So you're saying companies will benefit by netting $60 instead of $90.
From that standpoint, no, they will lose an average of $30 per box sale. However, there is an advantage that could offset the loss of that $30. A potentially larger population over a longer period of time. If I don't have to pay for a game, even one I've grown bored of, if it has elements I do enjoy, in a few months, having grown tired of whatever else is out there or tired of not playing an MMO, the buy to play MMO will get revisted, while the sub MMO may not. After all, I don't have to reactivate or pay more money in order to access the game.
Furthermore, when expansions release, I'm more likely to buy the expansion of a game I bought once, have grown a bit bored with, but don't have to pay a sub to access. Especially if I like the look of the expansion, in other words, if it brings elements that make the game fresh for me. And possibly expansions can sell for slightly more than they otherwise would if I were not paying a monthly sub without getting me all snitty about the added cost.
Of course nothing will bring me back to a game I'm thoroughly bored of, but that isn't always the case with gamers. Sometimes we burn out because when we have a new game we play too much at first and burn out a bit. The question the marketing people have to ask themselves is, how important is return business (in the sense of keeping population higher for longer and expansion sales) to our game as a whole, and if it is important ($30 in lost profit on average per box sale important) how likely is buy to play to net return business over a sub model?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Sometimes we burn out because when we have a new game we play too much at first and burn out a bit.
This is another good argument for the B2P model. As a new game comes out, we flood ourselves with time spent in the game world with the hope to "get our money's worth", and subsequently burn ourselves out within the first 2-3 months. If we have a model where we outlay a certain amount of dollars upfront, even if it's $20-$30 more than the average price for such a game, well that leaves us to sit back and play that game more casually, not feeling the need to decrease our "dollar per hour" ratio of gaming time.
Comments
Then please give me all the examples you can think of, of financially sucessful MMOs, that still don't have RMT. I can only think of one... Rift and there's no telling what they'll do with their game a year from now.
Frankly I can only see sandbox MMOs, 2 to 3 years from now still embracing the subscription fee. With so many F2P options and one major B2P option; the general public (that includes people who don't frequent forums) just won't see the point in having to part with $15/£9 every month, just to have a similar experience they can get for a couple of bucks whenever they feel like it. A lot of these F2P games are even offering very competitive deals, like Firefall & End of Nations offering the full game and only limiting the player in cosmetic options.
Personally I want GW2 to be successful and I believe it will, at least in the MMO world. However for the B2P payment model to catch on, it will need to generate a major buzz among the general public, similar to how Minecraft did.
I agree it really relies on GW2 being very successful. I admit that i don't mind paying the 15 bucks or £9/10 as it is here, but that's because i'm so used to it after all these years. Afterall we pay over the odds for so many things in our life that it is an accepted fact that we work to line the pockets of people who have more than we do. I'm getting past the point of being tired of that and heading to peed off. However i do see your estimate of only sandbox games being sub based in 2-3 years a bit optimistic, personally i'd say that would be the time frame for the model to be catching on rather than it being the norm.
It will be very interesting to see SW:TOR and GW2 side by side with total players online numbers 6-12 months after release and even though I doubt we'd get the information, the total amount of projected/past income over that period.
Yeah, I'd also be interested in seeing those kind of numbers, about 6 months after the release of Guild Wars 2. Because with so many people planning to play SW:TOR like a typical Bioware singleplayer RPG, I just don't see how that game will be able to retain the majority of it's subscribers. Especially in the wake of an equally good subscription-less MMO. However I was wonder what effect the lack of the subscription fee or the gear-grinding endgame treadmill, will have on the playerbase numbers and whether GW2 will be able to keep the majority of its players coming back, from time to time.
I'm about to get off and go get drunk (we're half way there already), it's been a hard week , but that struck a chord. If the game is as good as it looks to be shaping up then i think the number of players returning over time will be significantly higher than those in P2P games.
I've been playing MMO's since around 2004, when i finally had some time to find out PC's weren't just devils put on this earth to take up my free time with work related nonsense. Since then there have been an MMO or two that i still return to for a month or two each year even though they are old. I can't imagine how different the return rate would be in general if a subscription barrier wasnt in place. I know i would reinstall and try out games i was on the fence about in the past instead of only those i knew i enjoyed.
Well the problem with this kind of model, albeit a nice idea, is the legal issue of asking kids, some of them under 15 years of age, to spend money on a virtual world.
I'm pretty sure that here in Australia this would not be allowed without some kind of discussion in Parliament first. We're still fighting to have a R18+ rating installed for games so that adult games can be released, which you may remember was directly the cause of the late release of Fallout 3. Australian laws prohibited the game, so to be nice to their Aussie fans the game was delayed and some of the content changed before it was finally released worldwide.
/minusian@gmail.com @minusian
The reason why GW1 works so well is also because of their population. If you look at it most of them are adults and have access to something called a credit card. If you look around at the community in GW1 you can see a lot of them have outfits they bought from GW1 cash shop which requires real life money. The community is also more friendly and actually want to see GW1 continue to thrive so they don't mind spending $5-$10 dollars on a cash shop once in a while. I myself bought an outfit. It looks good and I know it is being spent on a game I know will always be maintained by a company that cares about their player's opinions. In GW2 they will also have a cash shop and I'm hoping that the community that there is in GW1 will also be there in GW2.
Smile
guild war is one of a kind. pretty much the only b2p mmorpg. So it manage to sell alot of copy. And the only way it survive is it sells alot of copy.
I doubt it'll be that big if it have competition.
Besides it's not about survival. It's about making profit for the game company. Many crapy asian f2p games are making way more money than guild wars.
There's nothing wrong with b2p model. It's just a choice. And the main thing is people prefer b2p model because it's cheap, not because of any other reason.
I see very little difference between buy to play and Freemium except for 2 points.
Buy to Play has a barrier of entry and requires free trial offers as a marketing too. On one hand this makes promotions more difficult, but it could be having a positive affect on community because the non-spenders are excluded.
Buy to Play provides access to the whole game (minus expansion packs) for the purchase price.
Freemium has no barrier of entry so world populations go up. This makes marketing easier, but might be having a negative impact on community because the non-spenders are welcome all the time.
Freemium provides access to part of the game, and access to content is purchased a-la-carte.
I have to admit, I'm more of a fan for buy to play. It's like getting a lifetime subscription (value $350) for the price of the box ($35 or so). Having to buy bank space, etc. isn't much of annoyance considering the price break.
Buy to play works for obvious reasons, you go to buy the game, end.
Except this isnt true for GW, as I have told you in another thread (but you seem to just prefer to ignore what dosen't suit).
GW has gated content for sale in it's shop. You do not get access to the whole game once you have bought the boxes.
The box cost as a filter we agree with, but thats the only difference between the models.
B2P is exactly the same as F2P once past the box cost.
B2P, F2P or freemiuim all work for me except P2P.
I don't really have the time to play a MMO everyday for a few months. So I would like to hop on a game randomly without having to worry if I'm even able to log-in or the worst, paying a monthly fee just to keep the door open and feel that I HAVE to play the game coz my sub is running.
This is what ppl dont understand, After 4 months of subscription, they basicly pay for second box of the game and they almost never get content even comparable to that price.
True, but that was never the deal offerd was it?
The deal was 'You buy the box, enjoy as many hours gameplay as you want as part of that price, and then if you still want to you can pay us £2.50 a week to continue to play the ungated content for as many hours as you like, unrestricted by anything save yourself. In that time we will provide you with customer support, a reliable infra structure, some additional content, and game improvements'.
All of which is a genuine bargain imo.
B2P+Trial *is* F2P.
The definition for both is "we're gonna let you play some, but you'll need to pay to play all."
The main differences being that B2P+Trial typically gives you a lot less for free, and also F2P tends to involve a lot more individual purchases.
Here's hoping the ridiculous success of League of Legend's Uncompromising F2P + AAA Gameplay combination convinces more companies to go that route.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Man, is it REALLY possible that people know so little about GW2? ROFLMAO They're not going to "hit the RMT".....they're releasing with a cash shop......it's not coming later. How do you think they're going to earn extra money? And....I'm perfectly fine with that since I don't have to pay a monthly fee. Your mileage may vary. If you don't like it, don't play. I don't think I'll miss you, tbh. You'll be having fun in some OTHER game....big deal.
Furthermore, I think Jeff Strain knows about the game he's developing. If he says it's not prohibitively expensive, I believe him. What difference does it make, really. They have determined a way to make it happen for THEIR game. I don't really care what some OTHER "talking head" has to say. Interesting but the other "talking heads" are pretty much silent on the matter of overhead costs. I wonder why? Could it be they don't want their subscribers to realize that they're being shafted? After all.....WoW, EQ2 (and probably some others).....they both have subs AND cash shops.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
They're already charging as much for the box as they would if there were to be no sub, in the $50 to $60 dollar range. To charge a sub on top of that is $15 more for an average of an unknown number of months, but let's call it two. So you're saying companies will benefit by netting $60 instead of $90.
From that standpoint, no, they will lose an average of $30 per box sale. However, there is an advantage that could offset the loss of that $30. A potentially larger population over a longer period of time. If I don't have to pay for a game, even one I've grown bored of, if it has elements I do enjoy, in a few months, having grown tired of whatever else is out there or tired of not playing an MMO, the buy to play MMO will get revisted, while the sub MMO may not. After all, I don't have to reactivate or pay more money in order to access the game.
Furthermore, when expansions release, I'm more likely to buy the expansion of a game I bought once, have grown a bit bored with, but don't have to pay a sub to access. Especially if I like the look of the expansion, in other words, if it brings elements that make the game fresh for me. And possibly expansions can sell for slightly more than they otherwise would if I were not paying a monthly sub without getting me all snitty about the added cost.
Of course nothing will bring me back to a game I'm thoroughly bored of, but that isn't always the case with gamers. Sometimes we burn out because when we have a new game we play too much at first and burn out a bit. The question the marketing people have to ask themselves is, how important is return business (in the sense of keeping population higher for longer and expansion sales) to our game as a whole, and if it is important ($30 in lost profit on average per box sale important) how likely is buy to play to net return business over a sub model?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
This is another good argument for the B2P model. As a new game comes out, we flood ourselves with time spent in the game world with the hope to "get our money's worth", and subsequently burn ourselves out within the first 2-3 months. If we have a model where we outlay a certain amount of dollars upfront, even if it's $20-$30 more than the average price for such a game, well that leaves us to sit back and play that game more casually, not feeling the need to decrease our "dollar per hour" ratio of gaming time.
-Ian