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.
That's what I'm saying. With B2P, a game like TOR simply isn't possible, and these games are becoming more and more expensive to make every year.
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?
but the question is why should you support paying every month, if you can get a similar quality game for nothing, I simply dont understand how people can sit and defend a sub if GW2 should end up being atleast as good as other MMOs, even if you d not really agree it is the better game.
but ofc you are right Id want it completely free too....if it is a quality game ofc.....else Id rather pay abit for something Id actually enjoy
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.
That's what I'm saying. With B2P, a game like TOR simply isn't possible, and these games are becoming more and more expensive to make every year.
There his single player game that have sold enough copy to covers that kind of development cost. You need a great game, but if you put 100 million on it, it can only be good if i believe you ;-).
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 agree with that also. From a consumer stand point I prefer B2P model, However P2P is the ideal model for companies not only can they charge to make content, they also charge for the consumer to play it. That is why I'm reconsidering my relationship with P2P games.
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?
Not necessarily. The thing about a F2P game is that they have to incentivize you to use the cash shop by holding you back in some way. With B2P you can truly say that you have everything you need to play the game.
What it comes down to also is what you're getting in value for the amount you spend. Like someone earlier brought up League of Legends. LoL is a very good game, and I think the F2P model is the best one for it, but it's also very limited in content. It's got 3 maps and they put out 1 champion per month. It's incredibly far away from a AAA MMO.
Up until now, if you've wanted AAA content in an MMO, you've had to pay a subscription. Assuming GW2 can pull off B2P and still provide a AAA experience, it will be much better for the consumer. Right now as far as I know, the only F2P AAA MMO in development is Firefall. I've also heard they're planning on limiting people's access to the game unless they use the shop. I can't speak for anybody else, but if that's what it takes to make a AAA F2P MMO viable, I think I would prefer B2P. There's also a question if they're going to truly be able to provide a AAA experience. If it's still too early to tell whether GW2 will pull it off, it's really too early to tell whether Firefall will.
There's also the issue of having to market the shop. Seeing a button in the corner, a popup every time you close the game, or a quest which gives me cash shop points and having to go spend them I find very offputting. With GW1, there's a small ad talking about a special offer in the character select screen, and there's an NPC you don't even need to talk to that has a link to the store. That's it. It's not even an option in the in game menu. I literally didn't even notice it for a long time.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
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?
but the question is why should you support paying every month, if you can get a similar quality game for nothing, I simply dont understand how people can sit and defend a sub if GW2 should end up being atleast as good as other MMOs, even if you d not really agree it is the better game.
but ofc you are right Id want it completely free too....if it is a quality game ofc.....else Id rather pay abit for something Id actually enjoy
Well you should support and pay every month if you find the game enjoyable. Its just a payment model, nothing more. If I can play a free game and get the same kind of enjoyment as a P2P game, then I'll play a free game, but thats not the case.
GW2 will be a good game, but it will not be the game to end all games, and I'll still want to play TSW, or Tera, and yes, SWTOR, but not all of those will allow me to play without subscribing for my time.
Are there better payment models for consumers? YES, but sticking to only those payment models would be at the expense of my enjoyment.
Hell I liked console games back when game content was all inclusive and they released console titles as a full game, anything afterwards would be combined into a complete sequel instead of the withholding and nickel and diming we get now, but if I want to play it, I pay for it. I support it because I want to play the content.
I don't care how good GW2 is, it will get boring if its the only game I play because its the only B2P title...
There his single player game that have sold enough copy to covers that kind of development cost. You need a great game, but if you put 100 million on it, it can only be good if i believe you ;-).
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?
Not necessarily. The thing about a F2P game is that they have to incentivize you to use the cash shop by holding you back in some way. With B2P you can truly say that you have everything you need to play the game.
What it comes down to also is what you're getting in value for the amount you spend. Like someone earlier brought up League of Legends. LoL is a very good game, and I think the F2P model is the best one for it, but it's also very limited in content. It's got 3 maps and they put out 1 champion per month. It's incredibly far away from a AAA MMO.
Up until now, if you've wanted AAA content in an MMO, you've had to pay a subscription. Assuming GW2 can pull off B2P and still provide a AAA experience, it will be much better for the consumer. Right now as far as I know, the only F2P AAA MMO in development is Firefall. I've also heard they're planning on limiting people's access to the game unless they use the shop. I can't speak for anybody else, but if that's what it takes to make a AAA F2P MMO viable, I think I would prefer B2P. There's also a question if they're going to truly be able to provide a AAA experience. If it's still too early to tell whether GW2 will pull it off, it's really too early to tell whether Firefall will.
There's also the issue of having to market the shop. Seeing a button in the corner, a popup every time you close the game, or a quest which gives me cash shop points and having to go spend them I find very offputting. With GW1, there's a small ad talking about a special offer in the character select screen, and there's an NPC you don't even need to talk to that has a link to the store. That's it. It's not even an option in the in game menu. I literally didn't even notice it for a long time.
But lets take into consideration, if you're spending 50 dollars on a B2P game, what would the difference be if you decided to spend 50 dollars on a F2P game? Remember, we're in a fictional world here, where this is a content cash shop only for a B2P game.
That means if cash shops are only selling content, would you like to have a free game with 50 dollars worth of content purchased or a 50 dollar game with an unknown amount of content purchased.
This is all hypothetical, because GW1 wasn't a content only cash shop, and there are pretty great free games out there that don't require you to use their cash shop with a very good experience (See: Global Agenda). If we're talking about whats best for the consumer, paying less or nothing is best for the consumer. If we're talking about real world possibilities and examples, then usually F2P (with cash shop) is usually not a great format, but in that case, in most examples, P2P is.
But lets take into consideration, if you're spending 50 dollars on a B2P game, what would the difference be if you decided to spend 50 dollars on a F2P game? Remember, we're in a fictional world here, where this is a content cash shop only for a B2P game.
That means if cash shops are only selling content, would you like to have a free game with 50 dollars worth of content purchased or a 50 dollar game with an unknown amount of content purchased.
This is all hypothetical, because GW1 wasn't a content only cash shop, and there are pretty great free games out there that don't require you to use their cash shop with a very good experience (See: Global Agenda). If we're talking about whats best for the consumer, paying less or nothing is best for the consumer. If we're talking about real world possibilities and examples, then usually F2P (with cash shop) is usually not a great format, but in that case, in most examples, P2P is.
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time following you here.
The first big difference between spending $50 on a B2P game and spending $50 on content in a F2P game is that in the B2P game, everybody else would have also spent the money. With a F2P game, you have to deal with the idea that the vast majority of people are going to spend nothing.
Fragmenting the playerbase is a real concern. Let's imagine that GW1 was an MMO and instead of releasing Nightfall as a $50 expansion, it was released as five $10 DLCs for a F2P game. Each one of them would have 7 zones, 5 missions, 50 quests, 0.4 new classes (I kid, I kid). Trying to put a group together for any of that content would be a nightmare because you'd constantly have to check who had what.
Knowing that if I'm in Elona that everyone else in Elona has access to that entire section of the game has value to me.
Maybe that's not what you're talking about, I don't know.
In your last paragraph, I agree. F2P has not been a good model for indicating AAA quality at all. P2P is a pretty good model but has its issues (that you're renting the game instead of buying, that you have to decide if you want to pay for a month before you can access the game even for 2 minutes, that a developer only has enough incentive to provide enough content to keep you subscribed). As far as real world examples go, I think GW2 has the chance to show that B2P will indeed be a better model for the consumer but still be able to provide a AAA experience.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
But lets take into consideration, if you're spending 50 dollars on a B2P game, what would the difference be if you decided to spend 50 dollars on a F2P game? Remember, we're in a fictional world here, where this is a content cash shop only for a B2P game.
That means if cash shops are only selling content, would you like to have a free game with 50 dollars worth of content purchased or a 50 dollar game with an unknown amount of content purchased.
This is all hypothetical, because GW1 wasn't a content only cash shop, and there are pretty great free games out there that don't require you to use their cash shop with a very good experience (See: Global Agenda). If we're talking about whats best for the consumer, paying less or nothing is best for the consumer. If we're talking about real world possibilities and examples, then usually F2P (with cash shop) is usually not a great format, but in that case, in most examples, P2P is.
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time following you here.
The first big difference between spending $50 on a B2P game and spending $50 on content in a F2P game is that in the B2P game, everybody else would have also spent the money. With a F2P game, you have to deal with the idea that the vast majority of people are going to spend nothing.
Fragmenting the playerbase is a real concern. Let's imagine that GW1 was an MMO and instead of releasing Nightfall as a $50 expansion, it was released as five $10 DLCs for a F2P game. Each one of them would have 7 zones, 5 missions, 50 quests, 0.4 new classes (I kid, I kid). Trying to put a group together for any of that content would be a nightmare because you'd constantly have to check who had what.
Knowing that if I'm in Elona that everyone else in Elona has access to that entire section of the game has value to me.
Maybe that's not what you're talking about, I don't know.
In your last paragraph, I agree. F2P has not been a good model for indicating AAA quality at all. P2P is a pretty good model but has its issues (that you're renting the game instead of buying, that you have to decide if you want to pay for a month before you can access the game even for 2 minutes, that a developer only has enough incentive to provide enough content to keep you subscribed). As far as real world examples go, I think GW2 has the chance to show that B2P will indeed be a better model for the consumer but still be able to provide a AAA experience.
What you aren't understanding is that cash shops fragment the population no matter what, the premise behind the OP is that B2P with a content only cash shop is the best pricing model for consumers, but it isn't. Not spending anything is the best model, with the second best being a F2P game with a content only cash shop.
This is taking into consideration that the release games are of equal quality. Because this is a make believe, ficticious thing, there are no content only B2P games, GW1 isn't a content only B2P game, and GW2 won't be one either.
As far as triple A production is concerned, well, it all depends I guess, currently we don't have very many true to life F2P triple A titles that released with the F2P model originally in mind. Perhaps, if we had, we might be looking at this thread differently.
But lets take into consideration, if you're spending 50 dollars on a B2P game, what would the difference be if you decided to spend 50 dollars on a F2P game? Remember, we're in a fictional world here, where this is a content cash shop only for a B2P game.
That means if cash shops are only selling content, would you like to have a free game with 50 dollars worth of content purchased or a 50 dollar game with an unknown amount of content purchased.
This is all hypothetical, because GW1 wasn't a content only cash shop, and there are pretty great free games out there that don't require you to use their cash shop with a very good experience (See: Global Agenda). If we're talking about whats best for the consumer, paying less or nothing is best for the consumer. If we're talking about real world possibilities and examples, then usually F2P (with cash shop) is usually not a great format, but in that case, in most examples, P2P is.
You got to be kidding me? This is where your argument failed. What is best for the consumer really comes down to quality product. A model where there is an equal trade between product and what they are paying for. With the three models that are being discuss, B2P in my opinion the best option in general. An AAA game title that requires to any consumber to just to install the game and also requires an additional fee just to play for a limited amout of time can't be cheap, in fact I don't know why I did that for so long. Going with history, F2P titles have always been about charging fees to do basic functions that P2P and B2P models give out for free.
What you aren't understanding is that cash shops fragment the population no matter what, the premise behind the OP is that B2P with a content only cash shop is the best pricing model for consumers, but it isn't. Not spending anything is the best model, with the second best being a F2P game with a content only cash shop.
This is taking into consideration that the release games are of equal quality. Because this is a make believe, ficticious thing, there are no content only B2P games, GW1 isn't a content only B2P game, and GW2 won't be one either.
As far as triple A production is concerned, well, it all depends I guess, currently we don't have very many true to life F2P triple A titles that released with the F2P model originally in mind. Perhaps, if we had, we might be looking at this thread differently.
There his single player game that have sold enough copy to covers that kind of development cost. You need a great game, but if you put 100 million on it, it can only be good if i believe you ;-).
I'm sorry, I lost you.. What?
I am just telling you that you can sell enough box of a game to cover 100 million development cost.
There his single player game that have sold enough copy to covers that kind of development cost. You need a great game, but if you put 100 million on it, it can only be good if i believe you ;-).
I'm sorry, I lost you.. What?
I am just telling you that you can sell enough box of a game to cover 100 million development cost.
Don't tell me you're one of those people that thinks all 60 dollars you spend to buy a game goes to the developer...
What you aren't understanding is that cash shops fragment the population no matter what, the premise behind the OP is that B2P with a content only cash shop is the best pricing model for consumers, but it isn't. Not spending anything is the best model, with the second best being a F2P game with a content only cash shop.
This is taking into consideration that the release games are of equal quality. Because this is a make believe, ficticious thing, there are no content only B2P games, GW1 isn't a content only B2P game, and GW2 won't be one either.
As far as triple A production is concerned, well, it all depends I guess, currently we don't have very many true to life F2P triple A titles that released with the F2P model originally in mind. Perhaps, if we had, we might be looking at this thread differently.
IF games were equal than yes, totally free would be best, free with a content only cash shop might be better than B2P with no shop (or not, since it might lead to detrimental fragmentation of the playerbase), then B2P with no vanity shop, then B2P with vanity shop, then P2P with no shop, then P2P with vanity shop, then P2W.
That's obvious. But we're talking about the real world, and games are not developed for free. 50-100 million dollar AAA MMOs don't get given away in a completely free way.
GW2 is a B2P game with a vanity shop. The OP is making the claim that a B2P game with a content only shop is the best model. No such game even needs to exist for him to make that claim that it would be better if someone did it, as long as it's a reasonable option. As a historical example, GW1 wasn't an MMO, but it was a B2P ORPG that existed with no shop for over a year until they added one. It's a viable option, they just made more money with it.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think I don't even agree with the OP. I think B2P WITH a vanity shop is a better model, because if people want to provide extra support for the developer in a way that doesn't negatively impact me, then I'm fine with that. YMMV.
Honestly, it doesn't even matter, because we're just talking and different people are going to value different things. Maybe one person would think an advertisement supported F2P game is the best model, and another person is going to hate it. The OP and I are arguing that B2P is cheaper for the consumer than P2P and offers more incentive to the developer to deliver, yet at the same time avoids the problems with F2P (holding people back, general lack of quality). There's no one size fits all answer for everybody, but we feel that people should be more open to considering B2P as a viable business model.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
What you aren't understanding is that cash shops fragment the population no matter what, the premise behind the OP is that B2P with a content only cash shop is the best pricing model for consumers, but it isn't. Not spending anything is the best model, with the second best being a F2P game with a content only cash shop.
This is taking into consideration that the release games are of equal quality. Because this is a make believe, ficticious thing, there are no content only B2P games, GW1 isn't a content only B2P game, and GW2 won't be one either.
As far as triple A production is concerned, well, it all depends I guess, currently we don't have very many true to life F2P triple A titles that released with the F2P model originally in mind. Perhaps, if we had, we might be looking at this thread differently.
IF games were equal than yes, totally free would be best, free with a content only cash shop might be better than B2P with no shop (or not, since it might lead to detrimental fragmentation of the playerbase), then B2P with no vanity shop, then B2P with vanity shop, then P2P with no shop, then P2P with vanity shop, then P2W.
That's obvious. But we're talking about the real world, and games are not developed for free. 50-100 million dollar AAA MMOs don't get given away in a completely free way.
GW2 is a B2P game with a vanity shop. The OP is making the claim that a B2P game with a content only shop is the best model. No such game even needs to exist for him to make that claim that it would be better if someone did it, as long as it's a reasonable option. As a historical example, GW1 wasn't an MMO, but it was a B2P ORPG that existed with no shop for over a year until they added one. It's a viable option, they just made more money with it.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think I don't even agree with the OP. I think B2P WITH a vanity shop is a better model, because if people want to provide extra support for the developer in a way that doesn't negatively impact me, then I'm fine with that. YMMV.
Honestly, it doesn't even matter, because we're just talking and different people are going to value different things. Maybe one person would think an advertisement supported F2P game is the best model, and another person is going to hate it. The OP and I are arguing that B2P is cheaper for the consumer than P2P and offers more incentive to the developer to deliver, yet at the same time avoids the problems with F2P (holding people back, general lack of quality). There's no one size fits all answer for everybody, but we feel that people should be more open to considering B2P as a viable business model.
I agree with that to a point, it all depends on whats released, and whats viable. For example, any game that fragments the community due to content purchases is a no-no in my book - particularly if they release that content fairly quickly.
Like if I were, to say, create a B2P game with a content only cash shop where you could buy completely different leveling areas that other people don't have access to. I would be more apt to agree that B2P with a vanity shop is the better model.
In that same avenue, we could see a F2P with a vanity shop also being a good model (like Global Agenda), but we haven't really seen something of that caliber in a large scale MMO format yet. (I mean, I suppose something like free realms touches on it, but lets face it, thats not really what we're looking for).
Most importantly I agree with the highlighted. I don't think theres a silver bullet for payment models, I think its all driven around the type of game you create. I think the P2P model works the best when you have a dedicated team that can actually provide a service that you're paying for, such as substantial new content monthly. F2P can be good too, if its not completely off balance with game breaking item sales, or community fragmentation. And the same could be said for B2P games, afterall, it has worked that way for server hosted Multiplayer titles for years.
What you aren't understanding is that cash shops fragment the population no matter what, the premise behind the OP is that B2P with a content only cash shop is the best pricing model for consumers, but it isn't. Not spending anything is the best model, with the second best being a F2P game with a content only cash shop.
This is taking into consideration that the release games are of equal quality. Because this is a make believe, ficticious thing, there are no content only B2P games, GW1 isn't a content only B2P game, and GW2 won't be one either.
GW1 isn't a content only B2P game. Can you please elaborate or are you pulling crap out of your ass? Cause I am pretty sure last time I checked GW1 is in fact such a game.
As far as triple A production is concerned, well, it all depends I guess, currently we don't have very many true to life F2P triple A titles that released with the F2P model originally in mind. Perhaps, if we had, we might be looking at this thread differently.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
What you aren't understanding is that cash shops fragment the population no matter what, the premise behind the OP is that B2P with a content only cash shop is the best pricing model for consumers, but it isn't. Not spending anything is the best model, with the second best being a F2P game with a content only cash shop.
This is taking into consideration that the release games are of equal quality. Because this is a make believe, ficticious thing, there are no content only B2P games, GW1 isn't a content only B2P game, and GW2 won't be one either.
GW1 isn't a content only B2P game. Can you please elaborate or are you pulling crap out of your ass? Cause I am pretty sure last time I checked GW1 is in fact such a game.
As far as triple A production is concerned, well, it all depends I guess, currently we don't have very many true to life F2P triple A titles that released with the F2P model originally in mind. Perhaps, if we had, we might be looking at this thread differently.
I think P2P is great and fun. I think people exaggerate the need to make addictive mechanics in game too much. First off for P2P developers don't NEED you to keep playing month to month forever, you have already paid for the game in advance for that month and many P2P games make you pay for the box as well.
Having just hundreds of thousands to millions of people pay you just $10 is a great profit for a single month of time, where as most single player/console, one-time buy games don't even last more then 2 weeks before you have "beat it all, seen it all". P2P is relatively a very cheap model, a month of entertainment of your choice for $15 is extremely cheap, when most one time buy games are anywhere from $30-60 new, and will at most drop to half or 2/3 of the original price when they are dated (more so and sooner now due to steam).
F2P the OP is totally correct and usually any sense of PvP is gimped if success can pretty much be bought. I love vindictus as a game but the model of F2P kind of lowers the fun I gain from it. Some talk about F2P games not being a "triple A" game, and it's also evident in games like Vindictus, how there aren't any dedicated servers for instances and players have to host their own groups. Game companies are more at risk and less likely to take risks on expense if they can't gaurantee those that play will pay. Hosting servers and providing basic security and updating the game requires a full staff of employs just to maintain current and old content, on top of developing new content (if they still are) along with expenses of servers and any other tech needed. F2P has the major issue of feeling still like a "pay to win" B2P and the typical ways to want to force or make players compelled to pay for what normal prepaid games give out,as OP stated truly.
B2P is great from the gamer point of view, but in the end of all things is no different from P2P, since most P2P are B2P anyways they both encounter the same issue: Initital player investment. P2P games can make money while offering free trial modes and whatnot until a person will be willing to pay a sub fee. B2P doesn't really have to appease their audience like P2P, because P2P wants to keep their player base. If B2P is just going to be DLCs every other month to play the latest content, as one said, it breaks apart in game community from the latest content instead of constant streamlined progression, it however works great for NEW players just buying the game (for GW2's case in specific, because they allow [from what I have heard]) the original box price for new players remains unchanged no matter the expansions. Also frequent paid DLCs is the same as a monthly fee in essense, you just don't get access to the newest content which is often what devs want and need to keep their income and player's attention or else they wouldn't have needed release more content in the first place. You might see companies charging ridiculous amounts too for minor additions to content, compared to the cost efficiency of buying the game new (look at most popular FPS games of today) along with the latest perks, progression and advantages players get left out of if they don't buy it, even if the work put into it and the content was pretty small or lackluster.
In Conclusion:
The best model really isn't a best model for any game, as said it influences design, in the end B2P really isn't something seriously different from P2P (initial investment). It really all comes don't to the price being right, some people don't care about game devs making money and paying them for service (maybe they don't tip waiter's or any service based employee either) and will only play F2P, just so some games can attract those types and kids who can't use a credit card (not to discredit those who like or play an F2P but those who make wierd staments as pledges to never pay in adance to play a game again).
Other ways of doing these models can be arguably better keeping in mind a great game at a great price is the best of the best. You can make hybrid B2P or P2P with F2P game features, that is not saying charge all people on both ends (but you could) but as a way of giving players options of either choosing to pay every month for everything in game or allowing non-payers to access the raw bones of the game, either have a limited time, content, progression or limited features.
P2P (and possibly B2P) games can allow players to pay after their monthly periods of gameplay are put in, instead of paying before you play you pay ("as you leave") for the time you HAVE USED. That would take away the initital expense required to just be introduced to the full game out of the way.
I think when most people talk about the best payment model, they talk from the perspective of "them and their friends" as a player, a customer but not as the developer (not all developers care if they have half million players or 10 million, if they are making the same money either way). I am sure developers of games have thought as much if not more on pricing models for their games as we have and do, I doubt many games have totally screwed themselves over on what method they chose to do. If they couldn't appeal to gamers its likely because they game had a failed launch, overpriced or is reaching that "expiring date" and needs/needed a defibrillating new jumpstart and sell point.
Details can always change it's the idea that counts.
There his single player game that have sold enough copy to covers that kind of development cost. You need a great game, but if you put 100 million on it, it can only be good if i believe you ;-).
I'm sorry, I lost you.. What?
I am just telling you that you can sell enough box of a game to cover 100 million development cost.
Don't tell me you're one of those people that thinks all 60 dollars you spend to buy a game goes to the developer...
I am not that stupid. I think that a game like BF3 that have sell 10 million copie have got at least 100 million to cover there cost.
What you aren't understanding is that cash shops fragment the population no matter what, the premise behind the OP is that B2P with a content only cash shop is the best pricing model for consumers, but it isn't. Not spending anything is the best model, with the second best being a F2P game with a content only cash shop.
This is taking into consideration that the release games are of equal quality. Because this is a make believe, ficticious thing, there are no content only B2P games, GW1 isn't a content only B2P game, and GW2 won't be one either.
As far as triple A production is concerned, well, it all depends I guess, currently we don't have very many true to life F2P triple A titles that released with the F2P model originally in mind. Perhaps, if we had, we might be looking at this thread differently.
IF games were equal than yes, totally free would be best, free with a content only cash shop might be better than B2P with no shop (or not, since it might lead to detrimental fragmentation of the playerbase), then B2P with no vanity shop, then B2P with vanity shop, then P2P with no shop, then P2P with vanity shop, then P2W.
That's obvious. But we're talking about the real world, and games are not developed for free. 50-100 million dollar AAA MMOs don't get given away in a completely free way.
GW2 is a B2P game with a vanity shop. The OP is making the claim that a B2P game with a content only shop is the best model. No such game even needs to exist for him to make that claim that it would be better if someone did it, as long as it's a reasonable option. As a historical example, GW1 wasn't an MMO, but it was a B2P ORPG that existed with no shop for over a year until they added one. It's a viable option, they just made more money with it.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think I don't even agree with the OP. I think B2P WITH a vanity shop is a better model, because if people want to provide extra support for the developer in a way that doesn't negatively impact me, then I'm fine with that. YMMV.
Honestly, it doesn't even matter, because we're just talking and different people are going to value different things. Maybe one person would think an advertisement supported F2P game is the best model, and another person is going to hate it. The OP and I are arguing that B2P is cheaper for the consumer than P2P and offers more incentive to the developer to deliver, yet at the same time avoids the problems with F2P (holding people back, general lack of quality). There's no one size fits all answer for everybody, but we feel that people should be more open to considering B2P as a viable business model.
I agree with that to a point, it all depends on whats released, and whats viable. For example, any game that fragments the community due to content purchases is a no-no in my book - particularly if they release that content fairly quickly.
Like if I were, to say, create a B2P game with a content only cash shop where you could buy completely different leveling areas that other people don't have access to. I would be more apt to agree that B2P with a vanity shop is the better model.
In that same avenue, we could see a F2P with a vanity shop also being a good model (like Global Agenda), but we haven't really seen something of that caliber in a large scale MMO format yet. (I mean, I suppose something like free realms touches on it, but lets face it, thats not really what we're looking for).
Most importantly I agree with the highlighted. I don't think theres a silver bullet for payment models, I think its all driven around the type of game you create. I think the P2P model works the best when you have a dedicated team that can actually provide a service that you're paying for, such as substantial new content monthly. F2P can be good too, if its not completely off balance with game breaking item sales, or community fragmentation. And the same could be said for B2P games, afterall, it has worked that way for server hosted Multiplayer titles for years.
MW, you and some other folks have actually brought up a really good point. Selling too much content in a cash shop can wind up segregating the player base, and that is definitely bad. I wouldn't want this to happen, and there are some ways around it I'm sure. But I can see where this is a weakness of a content cash-shop. And I would definitely be open to a B2P game with expansions and a vanity/non-P2W cash shop.
But anyway, let me explain why I think that B2P content is generally a good thing...
I personally don't really care about the price of a game...compared to other life expenses like car payments, rent/mortgage, electricity, etc. a game subscription is really cheap. All I really care about is that my (our) money is incentivizing the developer to constantly improve the game and make it the best it can be.
With a P2P game, the developer needs to make the game initially fun, but then just wants to keep their players subscribed in the late game. They don't necessarily have to enjoy the game, they just have to keep playing it. And the general method they use to achieve this is addiction. I really don't want to play a game that is designed to addict, but not designed to just be fun.
With an F2P game, the developer really needs to sell you crap when you start playing because that's the only way to make money. So F2P games are all about the sale. Everything in the game is tuned to make you want to buy stuff from the CS. And this is by necessity, an F2P game that isn't selling stuff is a failure. An F2P game can't be designed to just be fun for all without buying anything and be successful.
Also, a lot of F2P cash shop items take absolutely no work from the developer to create. Name changes, exp potions, virtual items...this stuff is essentially free for the developer to make. You aren't paying for their actual work on the game, the game is just a tricky delivery mechanism for them to sell their meaningless virtual goods. So the game becomes just a mechanism to encourage you to buy their virtual goods. If I'm paying for something, I want it to be a product that actually took effort.
But with a B2P game, the developer just wants you to buy their game. And generally, history has shown, that a sure way to make a game people want to buy is to make it a quality product. The only developer incentive here is to get you to buy their game. Yes, they can try tricky marketing to sell a crappy product...but this usually only goes so far. The most sure way to sell a game is to make a quality product.
And the same really goes for content in a cash shop. You are paying for something that the developer actually worked on, so it's in their interest to constantly work to make quality content so that they make money. If they don't make quality content, they get no money.
That said...I understand that player segregation can be a big deal, and I wouldn't want this to be a problem. So I would be okay with expansions and a vanity shop like I said before. Or a content cash shop that allows other players to participate in content that you bought if you bring them with you or something.
I think I prefer a P2P model where the expansions don't cost the player any extra money. Here's why: monthly fees tend to weed out a lot of things that detract from the game, such as random spam and an excess of people that don't really contribute to the community. That being said, I think that P2P generally have better communities. I don't like when expansions have to be purchased separately because it bifucates the game. That creates the siuation where some people have contant that others may not have, and the game feels disconnected, like what happened to WoW. It's not preferable to me. Peronally, I don't mind subs. $15/month is pretty cheap for entertainment. The only issue that I find with P2P is that I am less apt to try out a game that I'm on the fence about if I have to put money up. Many offer free trials, but those tend to stir up the same issues that I have witih F2P. I'm not trying to find the best experience/cost ratio; if I can find a game that's suits me perfectly, then I would gladly put up the money.
Are there currently (or have there ever been) any "true MMO's" that used the B2P model ? And if not, why is that so ? I'm no expert on the market, but I can't think of any.
I've not played GW, but my understanding is that it was not a persistant-world MMO, like EQ, WoW or TOR. Afaik the B2P model was used for GW1 because it was not a "fullblown" MMO, hence it could not justify charging a sub as most other MMO's were doing when it released. Will GW2 be different to GW1, i.e. will it compete on equal footing with the "persistant-world" MMO's ?
I may have totally the wrong idea about GW, it's not intended as a flame on GW1 or GW2, so just correct me if I'm wrong, no need to kill me
Comments
That's what I'm saying. With B2P, a game like TOR simply isn't possible, and these games are becoming more and more expensive to make every year.
but the question is why should you support paying every month, if you can get a similar quality game for nothing, I simply dont understand how people can sit and defend a sub if GW2 should end up being atleast as good as other MMOs, even if you d not really agree it is the better game.
but ofc you are right Id want it completely free too....if it is a quality game ofc.....else Id rather pay abit for something Id actually enjoy
There his single player game that have sold enough copy to covers that kind of development cost. You need a great game, but if you put 100 million on it, it can only be good if i believe you ;-).
I agree with that also. From a consumer stand point I prefer B2P model, However P2P is the ideal model for companies not only can they charge to make content, they also charge for the consumer to play it. That is why I'm reconsidering my relationship with P2P games.
Read my blog http://sanmonocobra.blogspot.com/
Not necessarily. The thing about a F2P game is that they have to incentivize you to use the cash shop by holding you back in some way. With B2P you can truly say that you have everything you need to play the game.
What it comes down to also is what you're getting in value for the amount you spend. Like someone earlier brought up League of Legends. LoL is a very good game, and I think the F2P model is the best one for it, but it's also very limited in content. It's got 3 maps and they put out 1 champion per month. It's incredibly far away from a AAA MMO.
Up until now, if you've wanted AAA content in an MMO, you've had to pay a subscription. Assuming GW2 can pull off B2P and still provide a AAA experience, it will be much better for the consumer. Right now as far as I know, the only F2P AAA MMO in development is Firefall. I've also heard they're planning on limiting people's access to the game unless they use the shop. I can't speak for anybody else, but if that's what it takes to make a AAA F2P MMO viable, I think I would prefer B2P. There's also a question if they're going to truly be able to provide a AAA experience. If it's still too early to tell whether GW2 will pull it off, it's really too early to tell whether Firefall will.
There's also the issue of having to market the shop. Seeing a button in the corner, a popup every time you close the game, or a quest which gives me cash shop points and having to go spend them I find very offputting. With GW1, there's a small ad talking about a special offer in the character select screen, and there's an NPC you don't even need to talk to that has a link to the store. That's it. It's not even an option in the in game menu. I literally didn't even notice it for a long time.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Well you should support and pay every month if you find the game enjoyable. Its just a payment model, nothing more. If I can play a free game and get the same kind of enjoyment as a P2P game, then I'll play a free game, but thats not the case.
GW2 will be a good game, but it will not be the game to end all games, and I'll still want to play TSW, or Tera, and yes, SWTOR, but not all of those will allow me to play without subscribing for my time.
Are there better payment models for consumers? YES, but sticking to only those payment models would be at the expense of my enjoyment.
Hell I liked console games back when game content was all inclusive and they released console titles as a full game, anything afterwards would be combined into a complete sequel instead of the withholding and nickel and diming we get now, but if I want to play it, I pay for it. I support it because I want to play the content.
I don't care how good GW2 is, it will get boring if its the only game I play because its the only B2P title...
I'm sorry, I lost you.. What?
But lets take into consideration, if you're spending 50 dollars on a B2P game, what would the difference be if you decided to spend 50 dollars on a F2P game? Remember, we're in a fictional world here, where this is a content cash shop only for a B2P game.
That means if cash shops are only selling content, would you like to have a free game with 50 dollars worth of content purchased or a 50 dollar game with an unknown amount of content purchased.
This is all hypothetical, because GW1 wasn't a content only cash shop, and there are pretty great free games out there that don't require you to use their cash shop with a very good experience (See: Global Agenda). If we're talking about whats best for the consumer, paying less or nothing is best for the consumer. If we're talking about real world possibilities and examples, then usually F2P (with cash shop) is usually not a great format, but in that case, in most examples, P2P is.
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time following you here.
The first big difference between spending $50 on a B2P game and spending $50 on content in a F2P game is that in the B2P game, everybody else would have also spent the money. With a F2P game, you have to deal with the idea that the vast majority of people are going to spend nothing.
Fragmenting the playerbase is a real concern. Let's imagine that GW1 was an MMO and instead of releasing Nightfall as a $50 expansion, it was released as five $10 DLCs for a F2P game. Each one of them would have 7 zones, 5 missions, 50 quests, 0.4 new classes (I kid, I kid). Trying to put a group together for any of that content would be a nightmare because you'd constantly have to check who had what.
Knowing that if I'm in Elona that everyone else in Elona has access to that entire section of the game has value to me.
Maybe that's not what you're talking about, I don't know.
In your last paragraph, I agree. F2P has not been a good model for indicating AAA quality at all. P2P is a pretty good model but has its issues (that you're renting the game instead of buying, that you have to decide if you want to pay for a month before you can access the game even for 2 minutes, that a developer only has enough incentive to provide enough content to keep you subscribed). As far as real world examples go, I think GW2 has the chance to show that B2P will indeed be a better model for the consumer but still be able to provide a AAA experience.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
What you aren't understanding is that cash shops fragment the population no matter what, the premise behind the OP is that B2P with a content only cash shop is the best pricing model for consumers, but it isn't. Not spending anything is the best model, with the second best being a F2P game with a content only cash shop.
This is taking into consideration that the release games are of equal quality. Because this is a make believe, ficticious thing, there are no content only B2P games, GW1 isn't a content only B2P game, and GW2 won't be one either.
As far as triple A production is concerned, well, it all depends I guess, currently we don't have very many true to life F2P triple A titles that released with the F2P model originally in mind. Perhaps, if we had, we might be looking at this thread differently.
You got to be kidding me? This is where your argument failed. What is best for the consumer really comes down to quality product. A model where there is an equal trade between product and what they are paying for. With the three models that are being discuss, B2P in my opinion the best option in general. An AAA game title that requires to any consumber to just to install the game and also requires an additional fee just to play for a limited amout of time can't be cheap, in fact I don't know why I did that for so long. Going with history, F2P titles have always been about charging fees to do basic functions that P2P and B2P models give out for free.
Read my blog http://sanmonocobra.blogspot.com/
I'll stick with my $15 a month, thank you very much...
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
This guy can't be serious?
Read my blog http://sanmonocobra.blogspot.com/
why? I'm just asking.........
Read my blog http://sanmonocobra.blogspot.com/
I am just telling you that you can sell enough box of a game to cover 100 million development cost.
Don't tell me you're one of those people that thinks all 60 dollars you spend to buy a game goes to the developer...
IF games were equal than yes, totally free would be best, free with a content only cash shop might be better than B2P with no shop (or not, since it might lead to detrimental fragmentation of the playerbase), then B2P with no vanity shop, then B2P with vanity shop, then P2P with no shop, then P2P with vanity shop, then P2W.
That's obvious. But we're talking about the real world, and games are not developed for free. 50-100 million dollar AAA MMOs don't get given away in a completely free way.
GW2 is a B2P game with a vanity shop. The OP is making the claim that a B2P game with a content only shop is the best model. No such game even needs to exist for him to make that claim that it would be better if someone did it, as long as it's a reasonable option. As a historical example, GW1 wasn't an MMO, but it was a B2P ORPG that existed with no shop for over a year until they added one. It's a viable option, they just made more money with it.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think I don't even agree with the OP. I think B2P WITH a vanity shop is a better model, because if people want to provide extra support for the developer in a way that doesn't negatively impact me, then I'm fine with that. YMMV.
Honestly, it doesn't even matter, because we're just talking and different people are going to value different things. Maybe one person would think an advertisement supported F2P game is the best model, and another person is going to hate it. The OP and I are arguing that B2P is cheaper for the consumer than P2P and offers more incentive to the developer to deliver, yet at the same time avoids the problems with F2P (holding people back, general lack of quality). There's no one size fits all answer for everybody, but we feel that people should be more open to considering B2P as a viable business model.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I agree with that to a point, it all depends on whats released, and whats viable. For example, any game that fragments the community due to content purchases is a no-no in my book - particularly if they release that content fairly quickly.
Like if I were, to say, create a B2P game with a content only cash shop where you could buy completely different leveling areas that other people don't have access to. I would be more apt to agree that B2P with a vanity shop is the better model.
In that same avenue, we could see a F2P with a vanity shop also being a good model (like Global Agenda), but we haven't really seen something of that caliber in a large scale MMO format yet. (I mean, I suppose something like free realms touches on it, but lets face it, thats not really what we're looking for).
Most importantly I agree with the highlighted. I don't think theres a silver bullet for payment models, I think its all driven around the type of game you create. I think the P2P model works the best when you have a dedicated team that can actually provide a service that you're paying for, such as substantial new content monthly. F2P can be good too, if its not completely off balance with game breaking item sales, or community fragmentation. And the same could be said for B2P games, afterall, it has worked that way for server hosted Multiplayer titles for years.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
https://secure.ncsoft.com/cgi-bin/Store.pl?action=toggleCategory&category=4
Name changes, skill unlocks, cosmetic items, pet unlocks, etc. all available in game too of course, but.. sold as well.
I think P2P is great and fun. I think people exaggerate the need to make addictive mechanics in game too much. First off for P2P developers don't NEED you to keep playing month to month forever, you have already paid for the game in advance for that month and many P2P games make you pay for the box as well.
Having just hundreds of thousands to millions of people pay you just $10 is a great profit for a single month of time, where as most single player/console, one-time buy games don't even last more then 2 weeks before you have "beat it all, seen it all". P2P is relatively a very cheap model, a month of entertainment of your choice for $15 is extremely cheap, when most one time buy games are anywhere from $30-60 new, and will at most drop to half or 2/3 of the original price when they are dated (more so and sooner now due to steam).
F2P the OP is totally correct and usually any sense of PvP is gimped if success can pretty much be bought. I love vindictus as a game but the model of F2P kind of lowers the fun I gain from it. Some talk about F2P games not being a "triple A" game, and it's also evident in games like Vindictus, how there aren't any dedicated servers for instances and players have to host their own groups. Game companies are more at risk and less likely to take risks on expense if they can't gaurantee those that play will pay. Hosting servers and providing basic security and updating the game requires a full staff of employs just to maintain current and old content, on top of developing new content (if they still are) along with expenses of servers and any other tech needed. F2P has the major issue of feeling still like a "pay to win" B2P and the typical ways to want to force or make players compelled to pay for what normal prepaid games give out,as OP stated truly.
B2P is great from the gamer point of view, but in the end of all things is no different from P2P, since most P2P are B2P anyways they both encounter the same issue: Initital player investment. P2P games can make money while offering free trial modes and whatnot until a person will be willing to pay a sub fee. B2P doesn't really have to appease their audience like P2P, because P2P wants to keep their player base. If B2P is just going to be DLCs every other month to play the latest content, as one said, it breaks apart in game community from the latest content instead of constant streamlined progression, it however works great for NEW players just buying the game (for GW2's case in specific, because they allow [from what I have heard]) the original box price for new players remains unchanged no matter the expansions. Also frequent paid DLCs is the same as a monthly fee in essense, you just don't get access to the newest content which is often what devs want and need to keep their income and player's attention or else they wouldn't have needed release more content in the first place. You might see companies charging ridiculous amounts too for minor additions to content, compared to the cost efficiency of buying the game new (look at most popular FPS games of today) along with the latest perks, progression and advantages players get left out of if they don't buy it, even if the work put into it and the content was pretty small or lackluster.
In Conclusion:
The best model really isn't a best model for any game, as said it influences design, in the end B2P really isn't something seriously different from P2P (initial investment). It really all comes don't to the price being right, some people don't care about game devs making money and paying them for service (maybe they don't tip waiter's or any service based employee either) and will only play F2P, just so some games can attract those types and kids who can't use a credit card (not to discredit those who like or play an F2P but those who make wierd staments as pledges to never pay in adance to play a game again).
Other ways of doing these models can be arguably better keeping in mind a great game at a great price is the best of the best. You can make hybrid B2P or P2P with F2P game features, that is not saying charge all people on both ends (but you could) but as a way of giving players options of either choosing to pay every month for everything in game or allowing non-payers to access the raw bones of the game, either have a limited time, content, progression or limited features.
P2P (and possibly B2P) games can allow players to pay after their monthly periods of gameplay are put in, instead of paying before you play you pay ("as you leave") for the time you HAVE USED. That would take away the initital expense required to just be introduced to the full game out of the way.
I think when most people talk about the best payment model, they talk from the perspective of "them and their friends" as a player, a customer but not as the developer (not all developers care if they have half million players or 10 million, if they are making the same money either way). I am sure developers of games have thought as much if not more on pricing models for their games as we have and do, I doubt many games have totally screwed themselves over on what method they chose to do. If they couldn't appeal to gamers its likely because they game had a failed launch, overpriced or is reaching that "expiring date" and needs/needed a defibrillating new jumpstart and sell point.
Details can always change it's the idea that counts.
I am not that stupid. I think that a game like BF3 that have sell 10 million copie have got at least 100 million to cover there cost.
MW, you and some other folks have actually brought up a really good point. Selling too much content in a cash shop can wind up segregating the player base, and that is definitely bad. I wouldn't want this to happen, and there are some ways around it I'm sure. But I can see where this is a weakness of a content cash-shop. And I would definitely be open to a B2P game with expansions and a vanity/non-P2W cash shop.
But anyway, let me explain why I think that B2P content is generally a good thing...
I personally don't really care about the price of a game...compared to other life expenses like car payments, rent/mortgage, electricity, etc. a game subscription is really cheap. All I really care about is that my (our) money is incentivizing the developer to constantly improve the game and make it the best it can be.
With a P2P game, the developer needs to make the game initially fun, but then just wants to keep their players subscribed in the late game. They don't necessarily have to enjoy the game, they just have to keep playing it. And the general method they use to achieve this is addiction. I really don't want to play a game that is designed to addict, but not designed to just be fun.
With an F2P game, the developer really needs to sell you crap when you start playing because that's the only way to make money. So F2P games are all about the sale. Everything in the game is tuned to make you want to buy stuff from the CS. And this is by necessity, an F2P game that isn't selling stuff is a failure. An F2P game can't be designed to just be fun for all without buying anything and be successful.
Also, a lot of F2P cash shop items take absolutely no work from the developer to create. Name changes, exp potions, virtual items...this stuff is essentially free for the developer to make. You aren't paying for their actual work on the game, the game is just a tricky delivery mechanism for them to sell their meaningless virtual goods. So the game becomes just a mechanism to encourage you to buy their virtual goods. If I'm paying for something, I want it to be a product that actually took effort.
But with a B2P game, the developer just wants you to buy their game. And generally, history has shown, that a sure way to make a game people want to buy is to make it a quality product. The only developer incentive here is to get you to buy their game. Yes, they can try tricky marketing to sell a crappy product...but this usually only goes so far. The most sure way to sell a game is to make a quality product.
And the same really goes for content in a cash shop. You are paying for something that the developer actually worked on, so it's in their interest to constantly work to make quality content so that they make money. If they don't make quality content, they get no money.
That said...I understand that player segregation can be a big deal, and I wouldn't want this to be a problem. So I would be okay with expansions and a vanity shop like I said before. Or a content cash shop that allows other players to participate in content that you bought if you bring them with you or something.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I think I prefer a P2P model where the expansions don't cost the player any extra money. Here's why: monthly fees tend to weed out a lot of things that detract from the game, such as random spam and an excess of people that don't really contribute to the community. That being said, I think that P2P generally have better communities. I don't like when expansions have to be purchased separately because it bifucates the game. That creates the siuation where some people have contant that others may not have, and the game feels disconnected, like what happened to WoW. It's not preferable to me. Peronally, I don't mind subs. $15/month is pretty cheap for entertainment. The only issue that I find with P2P is that I am less apt to try out a game that I'm on the fence about if I have to put money up. Many offer free trials, but those tend to stir up the same issues that I have witih F2P. I'm not trying to find the best experience/cost ratio; if I can find a game that's suits me perfectly, then I would gladly put up the money.
Are there currently (or have there ever been) any "true MMO's" that used the B2P model ? And if not, why is that so ? I'm no expert on the market, but I can't think of any.
I've not played GW, but my understanding is that it was not a persistant-world MMO, like EQ, WoW or TOR. Afaik the B2P model was used for GW1 because it was not a "fullblown" MMO, hence it could not justify charging a sub as most other MMO's were doing when it released. Will GW2 be different to GW1, i.e. will it compete on equal footing with the "persistant-world" MMO's ?
I may have totally the wrong idea about GW, it's not intended as a flame on GW1 or GW2, so just correct me if I'm wrong, no need to kill me