I personally prefer what GW2 does (and GW1) - box price and cosmetic/convenience cash shop. I'll gladly pay box price for the game, and continue to support them through cash shop if they deliver content, our keep the game in a good state overall. With a sub I'd be paying monthly, hoping that what they promised would be patched in sooner rather than later. I want to be able to vote with my wallet while still having access to the game I paid a box price for - if they keep their promises, I'd be more than happy to support the company with regular cash shop purchases.
Hell you have some companies like SOE who do F2P, B2P, and P2P all in one game. In EQ2 for example, you still have to buy the expansions even though you can download a client and play the core game for free. You also have the option to pay a sub which is really the only reasonable option if you plan on playing the game for real. And on top of asking you to buy expansions and pay a sub fee, they throw a cash shop in your face every time you log on.
Surprised more companies haven't taken this opportunity to milk their players for more money.
I doubt GW2 will change my mind about paying a sub. I'm willing to pay a sub if all it does is keeps a cash shop out of the game. I'm that desperate to stay away from them.
I am already completely against paying a subscription. I will never pay a sub again [mod edit]. There is no justification for it at all.
I see pro cash shop guys say this all the time.
You say 'no justification' for subs, then defend cash shops because 'they need to make money somehow, they are a business'.
Isn't the double standard here obvious?
If there is no justification for subs then there is no justification for cash shops either. By your reasoning no extra money is required past the box price. If subs are a 'rip off', then so is breaking up the fluff content of that game to sell in a game shop, ESPECIALLY when I have paid a box price for that content already.
A cash shop full of fluff developed at the same time as the game you have charged for the client for is no different then day one DLC.
Both subs and cash shops exist to monetise these games on an ongoing basis and as a way of doing that I believe subs are a more transparent and honest way, as well as delivering a better deal for customers (even though most don't believe that, having not not yet seen the trick being played on them or the deeper impact of F2P on general game design).
The only way GW2 (let's face it, this thread exists because GW2 is B2P) will affect game payment models is if Anet generates more profit per year than the average subscription game (WoW being the elephant in the room).
So Anet will have to sustain a fairly high rate of monthly box and ingame CS sales every month. They could take the pressure off those channels by selling the players a new expansion every 3 months, for instance.
If Anet makes record profits from GW2, the industry will take note and try to copy it. If not, it will viewed as an interesting experiment perhaps.
The only way GW2 (let's face it, this thread exists because GW2 is B2P) will affect game payment models is if Anet generates more profit per year than the average subscription game (WoW being the elephant in the room).
So Anet will have to sustain a fairly high rate of monthly box and ingame CS sales every month. They could take the pressure off those channels by selling the players a new expansion every 3 months, for instance.
If Anet makes record profits from GW2, the industry will take note and try to copy it. If not, it will viewed as an interesting experiment perhaps.
Well, I didn't want to call out GW2 and have the moderators mistakenly move it over to that forum.
I don't think it's a zero sum equation, I don't think any single payment solution fits every particular gaming situation, and depending on several factor developers will continue to pick any (or some combination of all) types in the future.
The sub model isn't dead, pretty obvious people will still be willing to pay them (at least for now) and like you said, if ANET is successful more people will try and copy it.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Who are these people who say they would gladly pay more than $15 month for a whorthwhile game? ...
Probably people like me.
I don't care whether I pay €10, €15 or €25 a month for my MMORPG. I want a quality MMORPG experience and I would pay to get this quality experience.
How about 50 or 60 month? How high will you go? Maybe that'll be the new thing? High end gaming exclusiveley for those with the means and will to pay for it. Smaller communities, but it will keep the riff raff out.
Why not? If there's a market for it then I say somebody should go after it. Most other forms of entertainment have some sort tiered pricing structure. And yes it would keep many "undesirables" out.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
You say 'no justification' for subs, then defend cash shops because 'they need to make money somehow, they are a business'.
Isn't the double standard here obvious?
If there is no justification for subs then there is no justification for cash shops either. By your reasoning no extra money is required past the box price. If subs are a 'rip off', then so is breaking up the fluff content of that game to sell in a game shop, ESPECIALLY when I have paid a box price for that content already.
Its not really a double standard for a couple of reasons:
A sub fee is charging someone to play a game that they have already paid a full box price for. That sub fee is a charge for something you have already paid for.
Cash shop transactions are payment for something new.
I would agree with your position if sub fees covered the cost of expansions, but they generally don't. They are a $180 per year payment to play a game that you have already paid a box price to play. How many PtP MMOs offer as much content expansion per year as buying 6 new games for the same price as a yearly sub ?
When all has been said and done, more will have been said than done.
Not sure. Nothing happened last time when GW1 was successful, but they're not the same game, this one is actually an mmo so If it comes out of the gate kicking 5 types of ass it might have an effect. But given developemnet times said effect would be seen in 5 years? I'm not dropping my current subscriptions so i guess it's still no, nothing will change.
I have worked hard in my life to support my gaming habit. Enough so that 15 bucks a month isn't going to break me. It's three trips to Starbucks. I will continue to pay sub fees as long as they are providing something worth playing and enjoying. I will be trying GW2 for the first time next weekend, but i can tell you, if I enjoy it, I will buy it and play it until something comes along I enjoy more. The sub really doesn't play into it.
If GW2 can make B2P successful IN MY EYES.. I'll probably avoid sub based games.. Too many sub based game today like WoW, Rift and TOR do not supply content to justify the $180 a year.. I refuse to pay $15 to play raid grind.. boring..
I think GW2 is a AAA mmo, but I also think much of the hype is about the pricing model. The proof will be whether or not they hold onto active player base or not.
Saw a thread in the GW2 forums discussing whether or not it is an industry changer.
Got me to thinking, if GW2 releases to huge success and acclaim, and they really do deliver and sustain a full featured MMORPG using the B2P model, how willing will you be to pay a subscription fee in the future.
Or will you be more inclined to expect/demand the B2P model? Perhaps you'll be willing to still pay a sub if they provide something beyond what GW2 does, if so, what might that be?
Probably note, unless they can really bring something new and lower the sub fee.
The only way GW2 (let's face it, this thread exists because GW2 is B2P) will affect game payment models is if Anet generates more profit per year than the average subscription game (WoW being the elephant in the room).
So Anet will have to sustain a fairly high rate of monthly box and ingame CS sales every month. They could take the pressure off those channels by selling the players a new expansion every 3 months, for instance.
If Anet makes record profits from GW2, the industry will take note and try to copy it. If not, it will viewed as an interesting experiment perhaps.
It is preposterous that a B2P game generates profit like a sub based game (quality sub based game). Imagine how many boxes they would have to sell to be on par with WoW's annual profit.
I think GW wont be able to compete even with the recent single player hack n' slash game in terms of revenues/profit.
People who claim that it will change the industry are wrong, in my opinion.
There are still many people who would be gladly paying subscription for a game that is worth it. My assumption is that Titan will be sub based and will prove this correct. Of course I may be wrong
I really wish people would stop trying to compare every game to WoW in terms of profit. In that aspect, WoW is an aberration. No other game even comes remotely close to the numbers that WoW has. It would be much more appropriate to compare the financial success of GW2 to the average MMO P2P game.
I think GW2 could possibly change the industry if it is just as profitable, or more so, than the average P2P MMO. I think that while most devs would love to have WoW's numbers, they also know that it's pretty much unobtainable anymore. But a B2P MMO being more profitable than the average P2P MMO will certainly turn a lot of heads. And I personally thing GW2 can do that.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true – you know it, and they know it. Gamers may buy the argument that your MMO requires a subscription fee, if you can tell them what they are getting for their money. This is the legacy of games like Guild Wars, Maple Story, and Silkroad Online, all of which introduced new business models into the MMO genre and were quite successful. The subscription model is still perfectly viable, but the pain threshold is very low now. It's no secret that gamers don't want to pay a subscription fee. If you can convince them that your game offers enough value to justify it, more power to you! But be prepared to defend your decision, often and loudly, and back it up over the lifetime of your game.
The only differense is that in 2007 people that had played GW1 learned that. Now people playing GW2 will learn it
Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true – you know it, and they know it. Gamers may buy the argument that your MMO requires a subscription fee, if you can tell them what they are getting for their money. This is the legacy of games like Guild Wars, Maple Story, and Silkroad Online, all of which introduced new business models into the MMO genre and were quite successful. The subscription model is still perfectly viable, but the pain threshold is very low now. It's no secret that gamers don't want to pay a subscription fee. If you can convince them that your game offers enough value to justify it, more power to you! But be prepared to defend your decision, often and loudly, and back it up over the lifetime of your game.
The only differense is that in 2007 people that had played GW1 learned that. Now people playing GW2 will learn it
Then, please, tell me why a cash shop is any more needed? Both subs and a cash shop serve exactly the same purpose, to generate ongoing profit.
Both revenue models exist to make further profit off a game, if one is valid then so is the other.
If he is telling us that a game that charges us for the client really needs no further financial support to be profitable past that intitial sale, then that makes cash shops look EXTRA greedy and exploitative. All they will have done, if we accept that, is swap one pure profit model for a more lucrative pure profit model... and what does all that extra profit come at the expense come from?
The player ofc.
We won't even talk about the profound effect cash shops inevitably have on fundamental game design.
We won't even talk about how incredibly successful MMOs became under the sub model.
We won't talk about how Trion are proving how you can deliver a solid fun game, with great customer support, and robust ongoing live development under the sub model.
I am sick of all these industry mouth pieces telling us 'what the players want'. It has created a false reality as it has been picked up on and parroted dutifully by the gaming sites and others as it has been shilled across the forums by the industry.
Every poll I see asking this question and the vast majority are open to paying a sub IF THE GAME IS GOOD. This idea that the 'market hates subs' is BS.
Ok, lets look at the numbers and the math then. Im going to go ahead and look up revenue from 2007 since that was the year that GW1 rec'd its final expansion and was still being heavily supported. According to ncsofts financial reports GW1 made about $20 million dollars in 2007 which was the year that the Eye of the North expansion came out. It also makes note that GW1 sales were pulling in more money than City of Heroes/Villains despite CoX being a subscription game at the time. Comparing it in terms of pure revenue to a p2p game with a box expansion also being sold on the same year would require a p2p game to have over 80k yearly subscribers who paid for a $50 box expansion to match the revenue made by GW1 that year. If we compare to a p2p game without a box expansion released that year than the number of p2p yearly subscribers that an mmo would have to maintain to match GW1's revenue would be over 110k yearly subscribers.
If we break down the money GW1 made it looks like the same revenue that would have been generated by only 500,000 units of eye of the north sold in all of 2007 (eye of the north was a $40 purchase at the time of release). So esentially, in order to compare to p2p mmo's it would have to have roughly 4-5 times the number of players to expect to see similar profit to a $15 a month mmo.
Also ) . als Having established this metric of comparison we can now look at how GW1 fared in terms of profitability compared to other p2p mmo's. Going by the info from http://mmodata.blogspot.com/ ,we can now compare it to other games and see where GW1 stood. Now of course GW1 in 2007 is not GW2 at launch. Obviously there is far more anticipation for Arenanet's new product then there was for an expansion of thier older property but i do think this gives us an indication of how B2P profit compares to P2P profit. The comparisons do not always favor either side of the argument. There are in fact many p2p mmo's that didnt make as much income as GW1. And of course GW1 didnt make as much money as some of the heavier hitters.
There are still many people who would be gladly paying subscription for a game that is worth it. My assumption is that Titan will be sub based and will prove this correct. Of course I may be wrong
somewhere i read that they(blizzard) are thinking the free2play model, not even the b2p ...
i have a strong belief that the subscription models are not so efective in a world who lives in an economical crisis
There are still many people who would be gladly paying subscription for a game that is worth it. My assumption is that Titan will be sub based and will prove this correct. Of course I may be wrong
somewhere i read that they(blizzard) are thinking the free2play model, not even the b2p ...
i have a strong belief that the subscription models are not so efective in a world who lives in an economical crisis
I'm betting on a combination of all 3 payment models, Box price, option to pay subs or cash shop purchase content packs and perhaps cosmetic items.
Maximizing your revenue models is going to be the watchword of the future.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
There are still many people who would be gladly paying subscription for a game that is worth it. My assumption is that Titan will be sub based and will prove this correct. Of course I may be wrong
somewhere i read that they(blizzard) are thinking the free2play model, not even the b2p ...
i have a strong belief that the subscription models are not so efective in a world who lives in an economical crisis
I'm betting on a combination of all 3 payment models, Box price, option to pay subs or cash shop purchase content packs and perhaps cosmetic items.
Maximizing your revenue models is going to be the watchword of the future.
I could see a P2P/B2P set up working out. P2P with 15/month sub fee gets you the expansions, and some cosmetic cash shop points every month OR Buy 2 play. You purchase the game, expansions, and cash shop items if you want.
The only way GW2 (let's face it, this thread exists because GW2 is B2P) will affect game payment models is if Anet generates more profit per year than the average subscription game (WoW being the elephant in the room).
So Anet will have to sustain a fairly high rate of monthly box and ingame CS sales every month. They could take the pressure off those channels by selling the players a new expansion every 3 months, for instance.
If Anet makes record profits from GW2, the industry will take note and try to copy it. If not, it will viewed as an interesting experiment perhaps.
It is preposterous that a B2P game generates profit like a sub based game (quality sub based game). Imagine how many boxes they would have to sell to be on par with WoW's annual profit.
I think GW wont be able to compete even with the recent single player hack n' slash game in terms of revenues/profit.
People who claim that it will change the industry are wrong, in my opinion.
There are still many people who would be gladly paying subscription for a game that is worth it. My assumption is that Titan will be sub based and will prove this correct. Of course I may be wrong
I really wish people would stop trying to compare every game to WoW in terms of profit. In that aspect, WoW is an aberration. No other game even comes remotely close to the numbers that WoW has. It would be much more appropriate to compare the financial success of GW2 to the average MMO P2P game.
I think GW2 could possibly change the industry if it is just as profitable, or more so, than the average P2P MMO. I think that while most devs would love to have WoW's numbers, they also know that it's pretty much unobtainable anymore. But a B2P MMO being more profitable than the average P2P MMO will certainly turn a lot of heads. And I personally thing GW2 can do that.
What is an average P2P game in your eyes. SWTOR that is slowly dying, struggling Rift, TSW that is going to be F2P in several months, Tera? They are not average, imo. They are really poor games. So ok, maybe it may help the developers of rather poor MMOs to wake up and change their payment options which they would be forced to in several months after release anyway.
Producers of quality MMOs will not care, in my opinion. I would go all-in that next Blizz MMO will be subscription based.
If GW is to be compared with "average/poor" games then it probably aims at being slightly above average at best. Why not to compare this overhyped superambitious themepark with a truly successful MMO, like WoW. Because it does not stand a chance in making profit even close to it?So why would it change the industry then?Maybe producers should once again focus on making a quality game instead of trying to figure out how to milk as much cash as possible from their crappy game.
Just look at the results of the poll. People still consider subscription appropriate if it is justified with quality of the game.
If GW producers thought / calculated / estimated whatever that GW can offer sufficient quality to keep people subbed, then they would have subscription. They go for a B2P model, like Diablo which is supposed to be played for rather short time comparing to MMO. I think the aim of GW is the same...sell the boxes, get people play WvWvW for a month or two and thats it. A game like WoW can hold playerbase for 8 years+, for such game a subscription is an obvious way to go. Any MMO that aims at actually holding the playerbase for years will not go for B2P model.
I thought I was pretty clear in my first paragraph about what I was calling an average MMO.
I wasn't talking about quality of the game. That's irrelevant to my point. I was talking about average income or profit of the game. In that light, it's not WoW anyone needs to prove themselves against. Games like EQ, LotRO, Rift, and yes, even SWTOR, at the height of their paid subscriptions is what most every game has to prove themselves against.
I know for a fact that Anet are not looking to make an average quality MMO. They have stated their aim is to make the best MMO ever.
Also, considering that GW1 has retained a fairly solid player base for 7 years now, I highly doubt Anet is only striving to sell the boxes and get people to play for a couple months. But that's just me.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
There are still many people who would be gladly paying subscription for a game that is worth it. My assumption is that Titan will be sub based and will prove this correct. Of course I may be wrong
somewhere i read that they(blizzard) are thinking the free2play model, not even the b2p ...
i have a strong belief that the subscription models are not so efective in a world who lives in an economical crisis
I'm betting on a combination of all 3 payment models, Box price, option to pay subs or cash shop purchase content packs and perhaps cosmetic items.
Maximizing your revenue models is going to be the watchword of the future.
I could see a P2P/B2P set up working out. P2P with 15/month sub fee gets you the expansions, and some cosmetic cash shop points every month OR Buy 2 play. You purchase the game, expansions, and cash shop items if you want.
i dont know where you live or your wealth status, but around Europe and USA i know that the majority of househoulds are not able to afford monthly fees of 15$ just for online gaming, its calling luxury, and on the other hand game developers want to sell not to make a luxury product were none buys it .
I'm curious as to why you chose that wording for that option? The rest of the options were in neutral language; this one is worded in a comic (or in my opinion, absurd) manner.
I prefer the buy to play option both because it suits my financial situation (not much spare money) and my tendancy to play sporadically, when the mood takes me. A subscription, rightly or wrongly, leaves me feeling I "ought" to be playing a certain amount to "get my money's worth".
Yes, I know that other people have other mind-sets about money and gaming, but that's mine.
If there had been a sensibly worded option like "I prefer buy to play", I would have chosen it.
Comments
Why would someone pay for a box and still have a sub+cash shop+pay for expansion? because thats how most P2P games work...
Hell you have some companies like SOE who do F2P, B2P, and P2P all in one game. In EQ2 for example, you still have to buy the expansions even though you can download a client and play the core game for free. You also have the option to pay a sub which is really the only reasonable option if you plan on playing the game for real. And on top of asking you to buy expansions and pay a sub fee, they throw a cash shop in your face every time you log on.
Surprised more companies haven't taken this opportunity to milk their players for more money.
I doubt GW2 will change my mind about paying a sub. I'm willing to pay a sub if all it does is keeps a cash shop out of the game. I'm that desperate to stay away from them.
I see pro cash shop guys say this all the time.
You say 'no justification' for subs, then defend cash shops because 'they need to make money somehow, they are a business'.
Isn't the double standard here obvious?
If there is no justification for subs then there is no justification for cash shops either. By your reasoning no extra money is required past the box price. If subs are a 'rip off', then so is breaking up the fluff content of that game to sell in a game shop, ESPECIALLY when I have paid a box price for that content already.
A cash shop full of fluff developed at the same time as the game you have charged for the client for is no different then day one DLC.
Both subs and cash shops exist to monetise these games on an ongoing basis and as a way of doing that I believe subs are a more transparent and honest way, as well as delivering a better deal for customers (even though most don't believe that, having not not yet seen the trick being played on them or the deeper impact of F2P on general game design).
The only way GW2 (let's face it, this thread exists because GW2 is B2P) will affect game payment models is if Anet generates more profit per year than the average subscription game (WoW being the elephant in the room).
So Anet will have to sustain a fairly high rate of monthly box and ingame CS sales every month. They could take the pressure off those channels by selling the players a new expansion every 3 months, for instance.
If Anet makes record profits from GW2, the industry will take note and try to copy it. If not, it will viewed as an interesting experiment perhaps.
Well, I didn't want to call out GW2 and have the moderators mistakenly move it over to that forum.
I don't think it's a zero sum equation, I don't think any single payment solution fits every particular gaming situation, and depending on several factor developers will continue to pick any (or some combination of all) types in the future.
The sub model isn't dead, pretty obvious people will still be willing to pay them (at least for now) and like you said, if ANET is successful more people will try and copy it.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Why not? If there's a market for it then I say somebody should go after it. Most other forms of entertainment have some sort tiered pricing structure. And yes it would keep many "undesirables" out.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
Its not really a double standard for a couple of reasons:
A sub fee is charging someone to play a game that they have already paid a full box price for. That sub fee is a charge for something you have already paid for.
Cash shop transactions are payment for something new.
I would agree with your position if sub fees covered the cost of expansions, but they generally don't. They are a $180 per year payment to play a game that you have already paid a box price to play. How many PtP MMOs offer as much content expansion per year as buying 6 new games for the same price as a yearly sub ?
When all has been said and done, more will have been said than done.
Not sure. Nothing happened last time when GW1 was successful, but they're not the same game, this one is actually an mmo so If it comes out of the gate kicking 5 types of ass it might have an effect. But given developemnet times said effect would be seen in 5 years? I'm not dropping my current subscriptions so i guess it's still no, nothing will change.
If GW2 can make B2P successful IN MY EYES.. I'll probably avoid sub based games.. Too many sub based game today like WoW, Rift and TOR do not supply content to justify the $180 a year.. I refuse to pay $15 to play raid grind.. boring..
I voted neutral.
That is how it should be.
I think GW2 is a AAA mmo, but I also think much of the hype is about the pricing model. The proof will be whether or not they hold onto active player base or not.
Probably note, unless they can really bring something new and lower the sub fee.
Website: http://www.emrendil.com
TwitchTV: http://www.twitch.tv/emrendil
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Emrendil
I really wish people would stop trying to compare every game to WoW in terms of profit. In that aspect, WoW is an aberration. No other game even comes remotely close to the numbers that WoW has. It would be much more appropriate to compare the financial success of GW2 to the average MMO P2P game.
I think GW2 could possibly change the industry if it is just as profitable, or more so, than the average P2P MMO. I think that while most devs would love to have WoW's numbers, they also know that it's pretty much unobtainable anymore. But a B2P MMO being more profitable than the average P2P MMO will certainly turn a lot of heads. And I personally thing GW2 can do that.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
the usual link to the Jeff strain article on How to Create a Successful MMO
http://www.guildwars.com/events/tradeshows/gc2007/gcspeech.php
Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true – you know it, and they know it. Gamers may buy the argument that your MMO requires a subscription fee, if you can tell them what they are getting for their money. This is the legacy of games like Guild Wars, Maple Story, and Silkroad Online, all of which introduced new business models into the MMO genre and were quite successful. The subscription model is still perfectly viable, but the pain threshold is very low now. It's no secret that gamers don't want to pay a subscription fee. If you can convince them that your game offers enough value to justify it, more power to you! But be prepared to defend your decision, often and loudly, and back it up over the lifetime of your game.
The only differense is that in 2007 people that had played GW1 learned that. Now people playing GW2 will learn it
Then, please, tell me why a cash shop is any more needed? Both subs and a cash shop serve exactly the same purpose, to generate ongoing profit.
Both revenue models exist to make further profit off a game, if one is valid then so is the other.
If he is telling us that a game that charges us for the client really needs no further financial support to be profitable past that intitial sale, then that makes cash shops look EXTRA greedy and exploitative. All they will have done, if we accept that, is swap one pure profit model for a more lucrative pure profit model... and what does all that extra profit come at the expense come from?
The player ofc.
We won't even talk about the profound effect cash shops inevitably have on fundamental game design.
We won't even talk about how incredibly successful MMOs became under the sub model.
We won't talk about how Trion are proving how you can deliver a solid fun game, with great customer support, and robust ongoing live development under the sub model.
I am sick of all these industry mouth pieces telling us 'what the players want'. It has created a false reality as it has been picked up on and parroted dutifully by the gaming sites and others as it has been shilled across the forums by the industry.
Every poll I see asking this question and the vast majority are open to paying a sub IF THE GAME IS GOOD. This idea that the 'market hates subs' is BS.
Play to Achieve > Pay to Achieve.
Oh, it might 'change the industry' a bit...
It might show devs that were about to give their client away and just use a cash shop to make profit that they can now sell it.
At least until folks finally wake up to the fact that B2P is just F2P with a client cost.
I honestly do not get the excitement for it.
Ok, lets look at the numbers and the math then. Im going to go ahead and look up revenue from 2007 since that was the year that GW1 rec'd its final expansion and was still being heavily supported. According to ncsofts financial reports GW1 made about $20 million dollars in 2007 which was the year that the Eye of the North expansion came out. It also makes note that GW1 sales were pulling in more money than City of Heroes/Villains despite CoX being a subscription game at the time. Comparing it in terms of pure revenue to a p2p game with a box expansion also being sold on the same year would require a p2p game to have over 80k yearly subscribers who paid for a $50 box expansion to match the revenue made by GW1 that year. If we compare to a p2p game without a box expansion released that year than the number of p2p yearly subscribers that an mmo would have to maintain to match GW1's revenue would be over 110k yearly subscribers.
( information on revenue source:http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx
Note that figures will require currency conversion to US$) http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnihttp://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx
If we break down the money GW1 made it looks like the same revenue that would have been generated by only 500,000 units of eye of the north sold in all of 2007 (eye of the north was a $40 purchase at the time of release). So esentially, in order to compare to p2p mmo's it would have to have roughly 4-5 times the number of players to expect to see similar profit to a $15 a month mmo.
Also ) . als Having established this metric of comparison we can now look at how GW1 fared in terms of profitability compared to other p2p mmo's. Going by the info from http://mmodata.blogspot.com/ ,we can now compare it to other games and see where GW1 stood. Now of course GW1 in 2007 is not GW2 at launch. Obviously there is far more anticipation for Arenanet's new product then there was for an expansion of thier older property but i do think this gives us an indication of how B2P profit compares to P2P profit. The comparisons do not always favor either side of the argument. There are in fact many p2p mmo's that didnt make as much income as GW1. And of course GW1 didnt make as much money as some of the heavier hitters.
somewhere i read that they(blizzard) are thinking the free2play model, not even the b2p ...
i have a strong belief that the subscription models are not so efective in a world who lives in an economical crisis
Not unless they bring something very interestingly new to the table. No way on earth will I pay if I don't have to.
I'm betting on a combination of all 3 payment models, Box price, option to pay subs or cash shop purchase content packs and perhaps cosmetic items.
Maximizing your revenue models is going to be the watchword of the future.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I could see a P2P/B2P set up working out. P2P with 15/month sub fee gets you the expansions, and some cosmetic cash shop points every month OR Buy 2 play. You purchase the game, expansions, and cash shop items if you want.
My theme song.
I thought I was pretty clear in my first paragraph about what I was calling an average MMO.
I wasn't talking about quality of the game. That's irrelevant to my point. I was talking about average income or profit of the game. In that light, it's not WoW anyone needs to prove themselves against. Games like EQ, LotRO, Rift, and yes, even SWTOR, at the height of their paid subscriptions is what most every game has to prove themselves against.
I know for a fact that Anet are not looking to make an average quality MMO. They have stated their aim is to make the best MMO ever.
Also, considering that GW1 has retained a fairly solid player base for 7 years now, I highly doubt Anet is only striving to sell the boxes and get people to play for a couple months. But that's just me.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
i dont know where you live or your wealth status, but around Europe and USA i know that the majority of househoulds are not able to afford monthly fees of 15$ just for online gaming, its calling luxury, and on the other hand game developers want to sell not to make a luxury product were none buys it .
" Not a chance in hell, B2P forever baby!"
I'm curious as to why you chose that wording for that option? The rest of the options were in neutral language; this one is worded in a comic (or in my opinion, absurd) manner.
I prefer the buy to play option both because it suits my financial situation (not much spare money) and my tendancy to play sporadically, when the mood takes me. A subscription, rightly or wrongly, leaves me feeling I "ought" to be playing a certain amount to "get my money's worth".
Yes, I know that other people have other mind-sets about money and gaming, but that's mine.
If there had been a sensibly worded option like "I prefer buy to play", I would have chosen it.