F2P - > longer you play and more "commited(addicted)" you're -> usually you buy more in store
Freemium -> same as F2P + they also want you to subscribe
B2P (GW1) - least of those ,but if you commited / addicted you will buy more fluff and more prone to buy new content fast (not waiting on eventual discounts)
So seriously talking that one model care about you playing more than other. - > LOL
All devs with all business model want you to play alot. why?
Bandwidtch cost is relatively tiny and people playing more = spending more in ALL models
+ people playing more = more lively /populated servers = more attractive game for new players
+ you play their game you do NOT / play less other games so you're NOT spending / spending less in other games thus have MORE money to spend in THEIR cash shop
GW2 fan thinks B2P is the superior pricing model. News at 11.
Follow up story.. non Gw2 fans see doom and gloom and refuse to add value to discussion. We'll keep you updated after the game and now over to the haters for the weather.
Let me put my two cents here. My opinion is that the B2P is the best model for consumers. The only problem I see with this model, which as been exposed in non-mmorpg titles are: How much content is being produce? AAA non mmo title games have cut about 35-45% of the content out of games, then to only comeback and sell the additional content which should of been there in the first place for the same price as when released. With Guild Wars 2 coming out, my question how much content does the players think they are getting? I know it won't be as much as WoW or Rift in less somebody want to correct me on this. Trust me while I love the B2P model, I don't see how Arenanet can pull this off without charging something on the back end. It sounds good on paper and that is all.
This could be a legit complaint. I know that other games like DA and a couple FPS have withheld content only to add it as DLC a few weeks later. Only prob is this can also happen in a sub game as well. How much content is your sub money producing? I mean they release small patches between content and periodicaly release small changes and add a couple things, but how much of those changes were just withheld?
For example in WoW's case, they release an expansion (that you pay for) and you get enough content and a raid to keep you busy for maybe a month. Then they release a tweek and another raid to keep you busy for a little longer and repeat until they release a new expansion (which you pay for). Couldn't all of those extra raids have been included in the expansion and just have it be the next one you are gearing for, instead of handing them out at a pace the devs feel will keep you playing? Or are they only releasing just enough to keep the averge person on that hampster wheel? Just because a game is P2P doesn't mean they don't/won't withhold content if they feel it will be better for the game especially when it means they can milk the consumer a little more. When I think of P2P models and it's playerbase I can't help but get an image of james Wood in Family Guy going "Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy!"
I'm not really arguing nor am I in a position to say if BioWare made the right choices, but it is very much evident that they are extremely ambitious in terms voice-overs. The game, almost entirely, is voiced in 3 different languages and will continue to be so for years to come. Likewise, the IP is something else which pushes more towards the P2P method. LucasArts is taking around ~35% of the game's generated revenue. If the game were not P2P, that percentage would be much higher or simply non-existent (they wouldn't sell the IP). Expecting 6 million even for a Star Wars game is simply far-fetched. Guild Wars 1 took several years to reach that number.
I don't think the "no transparency" argument flies in the modern era. With the internet, there is an EXTREMELY high level of transparency with games. You can read reviews, talk to other users on forums, watch YouTube videos of gameplay. I typically know exactly what I'm getting into when I buy a game nowadays.
And why would F2P games not need marketing as well? A consumer has to be aware of the game to try it, F2P or not.
Of course F2P games benefit from marketing too. But say an ad is successful: in a B2P game, the company has made money whereas in a F2P game you still have to entertain the player in order to get money from them.
As for transparency...are you saying you've always been 100% satisfied with every game you've ever purchased as a result of the internet's transparency letting you know exactly what you were buying beforehand? Hype and reviews have always been a good judge of a game for you?
100% satisfied? Of course not. But I could say the same of F2P games. You can try an F2P game, think it's good, spend money on it, and then wind up not liking it...same difference.
But anyway, even though I'm not 100% satisfied with all of my purchases, I generally have a good idea of what I'm getting when I buy it, and my purchases generally meet my expectations. Sometimes I buy games and then never play them...but that's really my fault. For example, I bought Divinity II because I was in the mood for an RPG, but I knew it was going to be unpolished when I bought it. Played it once, never played it again. But I knew what I was getting into.
There's just so much information out there. If you actually try to look for info on a game before purchasing it, you will generally know exactly what you're getting into.
The only exception to this is prepurchasing games. But well...the fault is on the prepurchaster at that point .
GW2 fan thinks B2P is the superior pricing model. News at 11.
Follow up story.. non Gw2 fans see doom and gloom and refuse to add value to discussion. We'll keep you updated after the game and now over to the haters for the weather.
LOL yeah...
I don't really see why it would be shocking that someone who likes B2P also likes a game that uses the B2P model. I mean, that's like saying:
"Shocker! Basketball fan also supports the NBA!"
I mean, if I supported B2P but was not a fan of GW2, then I may look like a hypocrit. But supporting B2P and supporting GW2 is kind of um...expected?
In B2P you sell the promise of fun. Fun itself isn't actually required. What this means is developers who put a ton of money into marketing will be highly rewarded because they'll seem to have the biggest promise of fun.
In F2P if your game isn't fun you make no money. Players have total transparency into whether your game is fun or not, and if it isn't they're not going to pay.
Do you want a payment model which encourages the developers to spend money on marketing, or to spend money making an awesome game that you get to try before paying?
B2P still need to sell expansions, at least one each year so they still need to keep it fun. You can sell the initial box just on hype and advertising but that is rarely enough. Heck, almost all computer games in the history of gaming have been B2P so I don't see why MMOs should be different from any other games here. Just do your research before you buy a game instead of just checking out a banner and you should be able to get good games, like you do with single player games.
Guildwars actually have a free trial.
Both models needs to deliver a fun game, the big difference is that with F2P you need to sell more items, which tend to unbalance the games, particularly PvP games.
B2P is however pretty rare with MMOs, I can only think of 2 AAA MMOs in development using this payment method: Guildwars 2 and Class 4. If those games sell well that might change fast however.
I've given pricing models in games a bit of thought, and I've basically come to the conclusion that the B2P model with a cash shop that only sells CONTENT (dungeons, new lands, etc.) is probably the best for the consumer. Before I go into why i feel this is so though, I would like to cover why I feel the other two popular pricing models are bad. My arguments stem from the basic truism that:
PRICING INFLUENCES DESIGN
Why P2P is bad
P2P, as you know, means that the players have to (typically) buy the box and then pay a subscription fee each month in order to play the game. This may sound all well and good, after all, they want you to keep playing right? You would think they would make a game that is so fun and awesome that you just keep coming back, right? Well...as it turns out, this is very hard to do.
So what developers usually fall back on is just trying to "addict" the player to the game by using the techniques of behavioralist BF Skinner. They essentially design the game so that the player receives rewards for playing the game in a semi-random fashion. After a while, the player ceases to enjoy playing the game, but keeps playing just to get the reward. And this is where the grind starts.
Some players can spend months, or even years, just repeating the same content over and over again to try to get the reward they want. In this way, the developer succeeds at their goal of keeping the player subbed for a long time, but the player often ceases to enjoy the game and often feels bitter and disillusioned when they finally quit.
Why F2P is bad
F2P is a VERY broad category of pricing structures, the only thing a game needs to be considered F2P is not to charge you anything to start playing it. So when I talk about F2P here, I am specifically talking about an F2P model where you can buy something that is not actual content for money. This includes things like: exp potions, gear, instant ressurection (ala Vindictus), etc.
The problem with this model is that the RMT items will almost inevitably impact the design of the game in some way. If the cash shop sells exp potions or gear, then the developers will make the game very grindy so that players will want to skip the exp/gear grind. They could also make it so that the RMT gear has a big advantage over non-RMT gear. If you can pay for instant ressurection like Vindictus, the developers will want to tune the game so that you die often enough to make you pay a lot.
There's also a "bait and switch" tactic that is used with some F2P games. Since the games are literally free to try, some developers will make the beginning of the game really fun and non-grindy, and then spring a major grind on the players once they are invested in their characters, with the goal of selling exp potions or gear.
Once again...pricing influences design.
Why B2P with content cash-shop is good
In a B2P game, you buy the box for the prevailing price in your region, and then that's it. You get everything that comes with the game at release for the price of the box...done. This is great because all the developer wants is for you to buy their game, one price, no strings attached, no hidden addiction-generating techniques or cash-generating gameplay. And you, the consumer can make the decision of whether the game is worth your money or not.
But you're probably saying that's not fair to the developer, because they would be making much less than a P2P game, and you're right. That's why they need a cash-shop. But this cash-shop should ONLY sell content that the developer has to put work into to create. No virtual goods that are just invented on the spot, no exp potions, no instant ressurection.
This content would be things like new dungeons, new zones, new classes...basically everything an expansion comes with, just broken up into chunks. You, the consumer, can decide whether the developer's content is worth your money or not, and you can pick and choose what you want.
I really think this is the best model for the consumer, because the developer's only goal here is to make you want to buy their product. And really, from the consumer's standpoint...that's the best goal there is.
I agree Cres.
Buy the box, pay for additional playable content is my ideal as well.
I know you get it, but it is important to emphasis play to achieve over pay to achieve... this selling sparkly hats crap can sod off tbh. The 'just cosmetics is ok' idoctrinated thought one of the biggest blights on modern gaming IMO.
I don't really see why it would be shocking that someone who likes B2P also likes a game that uses the B2P model. I mean, that's like saying:
"Shocker! Basketball fan also supports the NBA!"
I mean, if I supported B2P but was not a fan of GW2, then I may look like a hypocrit. But supporting B2P and supporting GW2 is kind of um...expected?
I think what he's trying to say is that if you're a GW2 fan, you are more likely to support their decisions, and that means supporting their business model choice.
I don't really see why it would be shocking that someone who likes B2P also likes a game that uses the B2P model. I mean, that's like saying:
"Shocker! Basketball fan also supports the NBA!"
I mean, if I supported B2P but was not a fan of GW2, then I may look like a hypocrit. But supporting B2P and supporting GW2 is kind of um...expected?
I think what he's trying to say is that if you're a GW2 fan, you are more likely to support their decisions, and that means supporting their business model choice.
That sounds unfair, there are other B2P games in development and just because you are looking forward to GW2 does not mean you support 100% of their decisions.
Still, the online game that given me most money for time is Guildwars followed by Biowares Neverwinter nights. 2 B2P games.
I spent years in GW and it was still cheaper than a single of my years in EQ2.
I am not a huge fan of the P2P model but I certainly don't like the F2P model. Can I afford the sub of 9 pounds per month? Of course I can and I am a studen at the moment. It's ridiculously cheap tbh.
However, I think that the P2P has huge drawbacks and every single other game genre does not charge a sub. Why should MMOs be any different? Because they have an online function? I can tell you that a game like CoD has greater bandwidth usage than half the MMOs combined together.
P2P means you have grind in order to hook you to play. Lets face it. MMOs pretend to have a huge amount of content and that the content never ends. Bullshit. If I play moderatly I am pretty sure I will exhaust most of the content in an MMO in less than a month. After that they bring the big carrot and you end up grinding hours on end.
Content generation does not justify the sub. Why? Because you pay $15 per month and you get a content patch every 3 months or more. 3 months is the absolute minimum I've seen. So if they release a content patch every 3 months that costs you $45 for that patch. They don't want to sell them as DLCs because they know their new content will only be worth no more than $10-15.
SImply put:
MMOs are all about grind in the end = boring
MMOs are the same as every other game = they have finite content which can be exhausted in a month
MMOs' value for money for future content is crap. You pay a lot more than what the patches are worth.
MMOs should not charge a sub like every other non-MMO game.
MMO have multiplayer. Big deal. That doesn't justify a sub. CoD will put 99% of the games to shame when it comes to bandwidth usage.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
That sounds unfair, there are other B2P games in development and just because you are looking forward to GW2 does not mean you support 100% of their decisions.
Still, the online game that given me most money for time is Guildwars followed by Biowares Neverwinter nights. 2 B2P games.
I spent years in GW and it was still cheaper than a single of my years in EQ2.
Dude, the guy probably looked at Creslin's post history or something.
If a developer can successfully make a super expensive MMO (100+ million dollars in development alone), with an extremely ambitious and costly content update plan, maintaining the entire development team post-launch, utilizing a renowned and expensive IP, all this using the B2P model, then I will be inclined to agree with you. Until then, P2P all the way.
Dude, the guy probably looked at Creslin's post history or something.
Still, B2P give you a lot for the money, even if Creslin do have an agenda.
This is what I payed in GW: $40 + $40 + $50 (bought a CE of nightfall) + $35. That is $165
As for EQ2: $40 + $40 + $40 + $40 + $40 + $40 + $900 = $1140
I did play EQ2 slightly more and prices are not exact but close since I don't remember exact prices I payed for all boxes but they are close.I only payed 15% of what I payed for EQ2 with GW.
I never bought any RMT crap in either of them and had access to all zones in both.
So B2P is at least cheaper than P2P. As for F2P I never really stayed longer than 6 months in any of them but if anyone played 4 years in them they are free to give us a sum for it.
If a developer can successfully make a super expensive MMO (100+ million dollars in development alone), with an extremely ambitious and costly content update plan, maintaining the entire development team post-launch, utilizing a renowned and expensive IP, all this using the B2P model, then I will be inclined to agree with you. Until then, P2P all the way.
There is only one MMO ever that cost more than 100 million dollars to make and that is TOR. If you go down a few millions there are 2 B2P games in development with great budgets and very experienced crews: GW2 and Undead labs Class 4.
Microsoft had no problem coughing up a huge sum for class 4.
But money does not make a great MMO, you need a competent crew more than a huge sum.WAR had a development cost of 80 millions and it does not fill your requirements. Guildwars might not be a full fledged MMO but it had plenty of updates.
And what does the IP have to do with anything? Games using IPs from books and movies usually do worse than unique IPs anyways.
LeegOfChldrn speaks truth. The lizard comment was epic gold.
LOL, thanks.
I'm actually a bit disappointed that only two people responded to my post. I look forward to hearing what others have to say, and whether or not I am right or arguably wrong. I am in no way a "professional" businessman, but do believe it to be true because it is what I hear. Typically in any business type, those who succeed are simply the ones who are NOT incompetant. Literally knowing even a tiny bit of anything, exerting even a fraction of real effort, or practicing real working business methods (instead of...you know...NOT) is the sole reason for massive success.
Sometimes I wonder if humanity simply runs in circles with its head cut off, until someone steps in and says "No...stop doing that..." and that person makes money. Then the other chickens emulate that person with their heads still cut off running in a different circle, pondering why they aren't successful.
I sometimes truly believe it's as simple as this...
1) BLIZZARD's World of Warcraft is successful.
2) Headless Chickens copy WoW, because it is successful, but fail. Billions down the tube, pondering why?
3) Because Blizzard is the reason for success, not WoW, and you can't copy a people (unless you have a working clone machine), and even then you need someone NOT incompetant to run things.
Isn't there some kind of famous quote for this life lesson? Something like... "A genius is not someone who is exceptionally skilled or remarkable in talent. They are merely someone who is not completely incompetant." -Einstein??
That sounds unfair, there are other B2P games in development and just because you are looking forward to GW2 does not mean you support 100% of their decisions.
Still, the online game that given me most money for time is Guildwars followed by Biowares Neverwinter nights. 2 B2P games.
I spent years in GW and it was still cheaper than a single of my years in EQ2.
Dude, the guy probably looked at Creslin's post history or something.
Hey I am hyped for GW2, I admit it. But it's not like I think ANet can do no wrong and I'll just blindly support any of their decisions. My preference for the B2P model comes from the arguments I gave in my OP, not from blind faith in GW2 or ANet. And even if I can't convince you of this, I urge you to look at the arguments I and others have wrote for or against B2P to make your decision, as opposed to basing your decision off of some imagined predjudice that I have.
And as for my potential "bias" for GW2, I made a thread in the past complaining about the personal story and how I felt that it might marginalize the MMO aspects of GW2. I also have posted several times that GW2 may still fail if they don't implement their core concepts like dynamic events right. I may like the design philosophy of GW2, but I know it's not a golden ticket.
Finally, I just don't get why if someone's post history reflects consistency in their viewpoints this is taken as a point against them. I mean, if you looked in my post history and found me bashing ANet and the B2P model, and then I post this OP, I would look like a troll (inconsistent views). But to have consistency in my views? How is this bad?
Dude, the guy probably looked at Creslin's post history or something.
Still, B2P give you a lot for the money, even if Creslin do have an agenda.
This is what I payed in GW: $40 + $40 + $50 (bought a CE of nightfall) + $35. That is $165
As for EQ2: $40 + $40 + $40 + $40 + $40 + $40 + $900 = $1140
I did play EQ2 slightly more and prices are not exact but close since I don't remember exact prices I payed for all boxes but they are close.I only payed 15% of what I payed for EQ2 with GW.
I never bought any RMT crap in either of them and had access to all zones in both.
So B2P is at least cheaper than P2P. As for F2P I never really stayed longer than 6 months in any of them but if anyone played 4 years in them they are free to give us a sum for it.
Yes exactly, thanks Loke.
And to those who think I have an agenda...Of course I have an agenda lol ! I thought that was clear from how I titled the thread. My agenda here is to try to prove to folks that B2P really is the best for the consumer. So yeah, I've got an agenda, it was posted clearly in the thread title...this is obviously an opinion piece. Yah got me .
I would have buy AoC and at least 6 of my friend would have buy WAR. We didn't since we were having fun in wow at that time, but we like these ip enough to have buy the game just to see what it's was like.
If a developer can successfully make a super expensive MMO (100+ million dollars in development alone), with an extremely ambitious and costly content update plan, maintaining the entire development team post-launch, utilizing a renowned and expensive IP, all this using the B2P model, then I will be inclined to agree with you. Until then, P2P all the way.
There like 1 or 2 mmo that have cost that much. The only one i can think of his TOR, in good part because of the voice over that does'nt add much to the gameplay.
For the free content, you pay 180$ per years on sub, do they give you 3 full game worth of content in free patch ? If you look at wow, they release 2-3 raid and some daily, a long shot from the content a x-pac give.
For the renowned and expansive IP... well that just silly to ask for that. Most great IP are from book or movies. You can make a great game out of it, but it's a lots harder than by creating your IP. The IP should make you sell enough copy to cover it's cost, if not don't use it.
I am pretty sure that when thay have made UO, they needed the sub to cover for development and brandwith. Most people did'nt have internet back there so you where going to sell a lot less game by not having single player and branwith was costly. It's just not the case anymore.
P.S. if you want to see great content done by developer just for the hope of selling more box after release, go look at the patch note of game like Unreal Tournament and Dungeon Keeper 2. Those where the time to be a gamers.
How is B2P with a content cash shop the best pricing model... wouldn't F2P with a content cash shop be better? I mean if you want to start talking about the BEST pricing model, in this ficticious world where cash shops only sell content, then its obvious a free game where you don't even have to buy the box is the best for a consumer.
Saying something is B2P doesn't mean anything really, nothing comes along with that which signifies the box cost equates to any lasting amount of content.
In a F2P game you just pay a nominal fee for what you want, and play for however long you want, and because we're in this make believe land where B2P games only sell content in their cash shops, then we could easily say the same thing about F2P games.
In fact we can take it a step farther, and the best pricing model for the consumer would be F2P with no cash shop.. I mean why not?
Comments
All current models want you addicted.
Both P2P and F2P and even GW1 B2P. Why?
P2P for continuous subs
F2P - > longer you play and more "commited(addicted)" you're -> usually you buy more in store
Freemium -> same as F2P + they also want you to subscribe
B2P (GW1) - least of those ,but if you commited / addicted you will buy more fluff and more prone to buy new content fast (not waiting on eventual discounts)
So seriously talking that one model care about you playing more than other. - > LOL
All devs with all business model want you to play alot. why?
Bandwidtch cost is relatively tiny and people playing more = spending more in ALL models
+ people playing more = more lively /populated servers = more attractive game for new players
+ you play their game you do NOT / play less other games so you're NOT spending / spending less in other games thus have MORE money to spend in THEIR cash shop
Follow up story.. non Gw2 fans see doom and gloom and refuse to add value to discussion. We'll keep you updated after the game and now over to the haters for the weather.
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.
This could be a legit complaint. I know that other games like DA and a couple FPS have withheld content only to add it as DLC a few weeks later. Only prob is this can also happen in a sub game as well. How much content is your sub money producing? I mean they release small patches between content and periodicaly release small changes and add a couple things, but how much of those changes were just withheld?
For example in WoW's case, they release an expansion (that you pay for) and you get enough content and a raid to keep you busy for maybe a month. Then they release a tweek and another raid to keep you busy for a little longer and repeat until they release a new expansion (which you pay for). Couldn't all of those extra raids have been included in the expansion and just have it be the next one you are gearing for, instead of handing them out at a pace the devs feel will keep you playing? Or are they only releasing just enough to keep the averge person on that hampster wheel? Just because a game is P2P doesn't mean they don't/won't withhold content if they feel it will be better for the game especially when it means they can milk the consumer a little more. When I think of P2P models and it's playerbase I can't help but get an image of james Wood in Family Guy going "Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy!"
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.
I'm not really arguing nor am I in a position to say if BioWare made the right choices, but it is very much evident that they are extremely ambitious in terms voice-overs. The game, almost entirely, is voiced in 3 different languages and will continue to be so for years to come. Likewise, the IP is something else which pushes more towards the P2P method. LucasArts is taking around ~35% of the game's generated revenue. If the game were not P2P, that percentage would be much higher or simply non-existent (they wouldn't sell the IP). Expecting 6 million even for a Star Wars game is simply far-fetched. Guild Wars 1 took several years to reach that number.
100% satisfied? Of course not. But I could say the same of F2P games. You can try an F2P game, think it's good, spend money on it, and then wind up not liking it...same difference.
But anyway, even though I'm not 100% satisfied with all of my purchases, I generally have a good idea of what I'm getting when I buy it, and my purchases generally meet my expectations. Sometimes I buy games and then never play them...but that's really my fault. For example, I bought Divinity II because I was in the mood for an RPG, but I knew it was going to be unpolished when I bought it. Played it once, never played it again. But I knew what I was getting into.
There's just so much information out there. If you actually try to look for info on a game before purchasing it, you will generally know exactly what you're getting into.
The only exception to this is prepurchasing games. But well...the fault is on the prepurchaster at that point
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
LOL yeah...
I don't really see why it would be shocking that someone who likes B2P also likes a game that uses the B2P model. I mean, that's like saying:
"Shocker! Basketball fan also supports the NBA!"
I mean, if I supported B2P but was not a fan of GW2, then I may look like a hypocrit. But supporting B2P and supporting GW2 is kind of um...expected?
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
B2P still need to sell expansions, at least one each year so they still need to keep it fun. You can sell the initial box just on hype and advertising but that is rarely enough. Heck, almost all computer games in the history of gaming have been B2P so I don't see why MMOs should be different from any other games here. Just do your research before you buy a game instead of just checking out a banner and you should be able to get good games, like you do with single player games.
Guildwars actually have a free trial.
Both models needs to deliver a fun game, the big difference is that with F2P you need to sell more items, which tend to unbalance the games, particularly PvP games.
B2P is however pretty rare with MMOs, I can only think of 2 AAA MMOs in development using this payment method: Guildwars 2 and Class 4. If those games sell well that might change fast however.
I agree Cres.
Buy the box, pay for additional playable content is my ideal as well.
I know you get it, but it is important to emphasis play to achieve over pay to achieve... this selling sparkly hats crap can sod off tbh. The 'just cosmetics is ok' idoctrinated thought one of the biggest blights on modern gaming IMO.
I think what he's trying to say is that if you're a GW2 fan, you are more likely to support their decisions, and that means supporting their business model choice.
That sounds unfair, there are other B2P games in development and just because you are looking forward to GW2 does not mean you support 100% of their decisions.
Still, the online game that given me most money for time is Guildwars followed by Biowares Neverwinter nights. 2 B2P games.
I spent years in GW and it was still cheaper than a single of my years in EQ2.
I am not a huge fan of the P2P model but I certainly don't like the F2P model. Can I afford the sub of 9 pounds per month? Of course I can and I am a studen at the moment. It's ridiculously cheap tbh.
However, I think that the P2P has huge drawbacks and every single other game genre does not charge a sub. Why should MMOs be any different? Because they have an online function? I can tell you that a game like CoD has greater bandwidth usage than half the MMOs combined together.
P2P means you have grind in order to hook you to play. Lets face it. MMOs pretend to have a huge amount of content and that the content never ends. Bullshit. If I play moderatly I am pretty sure I will exhaust most of the content in an MMO in less than a month. After that they bring the big carrot and you end up grinding hours on end.
Content generation does not justify the sub. Why? Because you pay $15 per month and you get a content patch every 3 months or more. 3 months is the absolute minimum I've seen. So if they release a content patch every 3 months that costs you $45 for that patch. They don't want to sell them as DLCs because they know their new content will only be worth no more than $10-15.
SImply put:
MMOs are all about grind in the end = boring
MMOs are the same as every other game = they have finite content which can be exhausted in a month
MMOs' value for money for future content is crap. You pay a lot more than what the patches are worth.
MMOs should not charge a sub like every other non-MMO game.
MMO have multiplayer. Big deal. That doesn't justify a sub. CoD will put 99% of the games to shame when it comes to bandwidth usage.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Dude, the guy probably looked at Creslin's post history or something.
They're all the same. One has a cap the others do not. Guess which one is prefered by many new devs.
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
If a developer can successfully make a super expensive MMO (100+ million dollars in development alone), with an extremely ambitious and costly content update plan, maintaining the entire development team post-launch, utilizing a renowned and expensive IP, all this using the B2P model, then I will be inclined to agree with you. Until then, P2P all the way.
Still, B2P give you a lot for the money, even if Creslin do have an agenda.
This is what I payed in GW: $40 + $40 + $50 (bought a CE of nightfall) + $35. That is $165
As for EQ2: $40 + $40 + $40 + $40 + $40 + $40 + $900 = $1140
I did play EQ2 slightly more and prices are not exact but close since I don't remember exact prices I payed for all boxes but they are close.I only payed 15% of what I payed for EQ2 with GW.
I never bought any RMT crap in either of them and had access to all zones in both.
So B2P is at least cheaper than P2P. As for F2P I never really stayed longer than 6 months in any of them but if anyone played 4 years in them they are free to give us a sum for it.
There is only one MMO ever that cost more than 100 million dollars to make and that is TOR. If you go down a few millions there are 2 B2P games in development with great budgets and very experienced crews: GW2 and Undead labs Class 4.
Microsoft had no problem coughing up a huge sum for class 4.
But money does not make a great MMO, you need a competent crew more than a huge sum.WAR had a development cost of 80 millions and it does not fill your requirements. Guildwars might not be a full fledged MMO but it had plenty of updates.
And what does the IP have to do with anything? Games using IPs from books and movies usually do worse than unique IPs anyways.
LOL, thanks.
I'm actually a bit disappointed that only two people responded to my post. I look forward to hearing what others have to say, and whether or not I am right or arguably wrong. I am in no way a "professional" businessman, but do believe it to be true because it is what I hear. Typically in any business type, those who succeed are simply the ones who are NOT incompetant. Literally knowing even a tiny bit of anything, exerting even a fraction of real effort, or practicing real working business methods (instead of...you know...NOT) is the sole reason for massive success.
Sometimes I wonder if humanity simply runs in circles with its head cut off, until someone steps in and says "No...stop doing that..." and that person makes money. Then the other chickens emulate that person with their heads still cut off running in a different circle, pondering why they aren't successful.
I sometimes truly believe it's as simple as this...
1) BLIZZARD's World of Warcraft is successful.
2) Headless Chickens copy WoW, because it is successful, but fail. Billions down the tube, pondering why?
3) Because Blizzard is the reason for success, not WoW, and you can't copy a people (unless you have a working clone machine), and even then you need someone NOT incompetant to run things.
Isn't there some kind of famous quote for this life lesson? Something like... "A genius is not someone who is exceptionally skilled or remarkable in talent. They are merely someone who is not completely incompetant." -Einstein??
lol...
What if AoC and/or WAR were released as B2P?
What if League of Legends was a B2P game?
Hey I am hyped for GW2, I admit it. But it's not like I think ANet can do no wrong and I'll just blindly support any of their decisions. My preference for the B2P model comes from the arguments I gave in my OP, not from blind faith in GW2 or ANet. And even if I can't convince you of this, I urge you to look at the arguments I and others have wrote for or against B2P to make your decision, as opposed to basing your decision off of some imagined predjudice that I have.
And as for my potential "bias" for GW2, I made a thread in the past complaining about the personal story and how I felt that it might marginalize the MMO aspects of GW2. I also have posted several times that GW2 may still fail if they don't implement their core concepts like dynamic events right. I may like the design philosophy of GW2, but I know it's not a golden ticket.
Finally, I just don't get why if someone's post history reflects consistency in their viewpoints this is taken as a point against them. I mean, if you looked in my post history and found me bashing ANet and the B2P model, and then I post this OP, I would look like a troll (inconsistent views). But to have consistency in my views? How is this bad?
{mod edit}
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Yes exactly, thanks Loke.
And to those who think I have an agenda...Of course I have an agenda lol
! I thought that was clear from how I titled the thread. My agenda here is to try to prove to folks that B2P really is the best for the consumer. So yeah, I've got an agenda, it was posted clearly in the thread title...this is obviously an opinion piece. Yah got me 
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I would have buy AoC and at least 6 of my friend would have buy WAR. We didn't since we were having fun in wow at that time, but we like these ip enough to have buy the game just to see what it's was like.
There like 1 or 2 mmo that have cost that much. The only one i can think of his TOR, in good part because of the voice over that does'nt add much to the gameplay.
For the free content, you pay 180$ per years on sub, do they give you 3 full game worth of content in free patch ? If you look at wow, they release 2-3 raid and some daily, a long shot from the content a x-pac give.
For the renowned and expansive IP... well that just silly to ask for that. Most great IP are from book or movies. You can make a great game out of it, but it's a lots harder than by creating your IP. The IP should make you sell enough copy to cover it's cost, if not don't use it.
I am pretty sure that when thay have made UO, they needed the sub to cover for development and brandwith. Most people did'nt have internet back there so you where going to sell a lot less game by not having single player and branwith was costly. It's just not the case anymore.
P.S. if you want to see great content done by developer just for the hope of selling more box after release, go look at the patch note of game like Unreal Tournament and Dungeon Keeper 2. Those where the time to be a gamers.
How is B2P with a content cash shop the best pricing model... wouldn't F2P with a content cash shop be better? I mean if you want to start talking about the BEST pricing model, in this ficticious world where cash shops only sell content, then its obvious a free game where you don't even have to buy the box is the best for a consumer.
Saying something is B2P doesn't mean anything really, nothing comes along with that which signifies the box cost equates to any lasting amount of content.
In a F2P game you just pay a nominal fee for what you want, and play for however long you want, and because we're in this make believe land where B2P games only sell content in their cash shops, then we could easily say the same thing about F2P games.
In fact we can take it a step farther, and the best pricing model for the consumer would be F2P with no cash shop.. I mean why not?
We have meerkats and a nodding dog selling us insurance, I don't know why but a lizard feels like a step up.
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
I don't mind paying the 15 a month but would prefer the B2P method like Guild Wars 2.
Grim Dawn, the next great action rpg!
http://www.grimdawn.com/