B2P is a bit misleading, if a game has a cash shop, at whatever level of integration, then its actually a F2P game with a box price, a true B2P game would not have a cash shop of any kind.
When converting a P2P MMO, B2P is not a consideration because it would mean not having a cash shop in the game, and since continued revenue is a necessity, the B2P option would actually be a hindrance, whereas removing the box price altogether encourages people to at least try the game, which is basically what happened with SW;TOR etc.
I think the only example of an actual B2P game was GW1, a lobby game rather than an MMO, where most of the work was handed off to the players own PC, which obviously saved on resources, though even then the game relied on continued sales of numerous expansion packs to keep the game running.
The MMORPG genre is floundering because of the whales and misers. Between these two extreme types of players we the ones who are happy to pay a subscription are left to the tender mercies of their whims as they seem to dictate whether an MMO survives since one brings in numbers while the other money.
Originally posted by kitarad The MMORPG genre is floundering because of the whales and misers. Between these two extreme types of players we the ones who are happy to pay a subscription are left to the tender mercies of their whims as they seem to dictate whether an MMO survives since one brings in numbers while the other money.
I am not sure that 'floundering' is the right word. Perhaps instead, we could call it something like 'record highs' or even 'substantial growth'.
I recognize that some games like Destiny have been vastly disappointing for many. The reliance on P2P marketing techniques is old school, and has led to people feeling like they got ripped off. However, this did incite growth in the user base (even if unsatisfied).
People who've got the money and will to buy the box have likely already bought it before the conversion. Going from P2P -> B2P wouldn't bring in the huge number of new players that going from P2P -> F2P brings.
Also, F2P model can often include some kind of subscription with access to more content (like SWTOR, Lotro, etc). That's very important when doing conversion from P2P because then you can keep on offering some sub service for your existing subscribers.
IMO the most logical answer is this one.. Those who were willing to pay the upfront cost of subscriptions and boxes already have, so it's not tapping a new market and lessens the possibility of potential growth that F2P would bring.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Because B2P by itself with no cash shop probably can't even keep the servers alive and the people running it paid. Do you really think that 3-4 months worth of subscription money per customer is going to do that? REALLY? Time to tune into reality, folks. Things cost money, a lot of money. They're not pulling a game out of their rear ends and running it on pixie dust.
Originally posted by kitarad The MMORPG genre is floundering because of the whales and misers. Between these two extreme types of players we the ones who are happy to pay a subscription are left to the tender mercies of their whims as they seem to dictate whether an MMO survives since one brings in numbers while the other money.
I am not sure that 'floundering' is the right word. Perhaps instead, we could call it something like 'record highs' or even 'substantial growth'.
I recognize that some games like Destiny have been vastly disappointing for many. The reliance on P2P marketing techniques is old school, and has led to people feeling like they got ripped off. However, this did incite growth in the user base (even if unsatisfied).
Only Destiny isn't an MMORPG.
Also, a while back I took a look at some of the data on the video game market (from reports generated by the Entertainment Software Rating Board website) and posted in another thread discussing the MMORPG genre's health. While the genre isn't losing revenue (as a whole), it IS "floundering" compared to the other genres of gaming. It's growth (you'd be hard-pressed to find a genre that ISN'T "growing" year over year, as gaming in general is growing) is much less than almost every other genre of gaming (and specifically online gaming).
MMORPGs aren't releasing household names. And the genre (market share-wise) is suffering for it. Their introduction to consoles also hasn't been incredible (we'll see how ESO does).
B2P is a happy middle, and publishers dont like happy middles. They only see both extremes as viable models. If they cant get WoW's numbers they get mad and decide to take revenge on players (lol) by making a shitty hybrid model to force those high numbers out of poor weak-willed whales. And to add insult to injury, when the free model stops bringing what they consider enough cash they sell P2W items with the excuse that "need to make money". Sorry but someone has to say it.
No, I really, truly think because of intentional marketing ploys the terms have become convoluted and now used interchangeably by people who don't know better (their marks) to make the distinction. It's more appealing to a customer to call something "F2P", and the company knows it's not "F2P", but they label it so anyway, when it's actually freemium.
If a game is free to play, the entire core game can be played with no charge and the company makes money only on cosmetics, currency or other stuff to advance faster. You cannot really "play the whole game" in SWtoR, for example, you have limits on everything from the loot you can use to how often you can pvp to raiding unless you pay, and that is freemium. EQ2 does the same thing, limits classes, races, useable crafted items and fabled drops, because it is freemium.
You seem to have forgotten that in games like Runescape (one of the original defining games for F2P in the west) much of the game is behind a subscription paywall.
Basically F2P is the gaming industry term for freemium (which is used in other industries).
Come on, man, it was all fluff: more titles, more emotes, more quests, more bank space, cosmetic pets, more music, dragon bones, housing, minigames, exclusive server access. There were a few more skills available to paying customers, but they weren't skills necessary to "win better" than f2p players, only make other actions more efficient. In pvp, for example, f2p players had no disadvantage to paying players.
Lets just sell the damn game to people... what people coin as B2P today but is essentially the way ALL games were marketed before the advent of silly things like bottled water and lattes.
You complete everything there is to do in the game? Well we've got something just for that... it's called an expansion! Yep, you buy the expansion and you get more content! Amazing isn't it?
So in recap, you buy the game and you can play it for as long as your machine will still run it or until the inevitable global nuclear apocalypse known as a server shut down. You get free bug fixes and balancing fixes. Nothing else beyond what shipped with the game.
Expansions are unique, meaning they DON'T share the same game space as the original versions. Server gods can implement separate servers per expansion OR implement a phasing scheme that separates players from each expansion so that NONE of the skills, et al, travel backwards in time. You want to play the game as it was, you must start there... once you migrate to the next expansion, there is no going backwards without starting over anew. This way, players can play the game as it was intended 10 years from now, not just during the first few months of it's release.
This notion that you need to have everyone on the planet pay some fee to play a game on line every time they log in is absurd. We've been playing multiplayer games online for years and they managed to keep afloat with a simple box price. Imagine that.
Originally posted by shalissar Because B2P by itself with no cash shop probably can't even keep the servers alive and the people running it paid. Do you really think that 3-4 months worth of subscription money per customer is going to do that? REALLY? Time to tune into reality, folks. Things cost money, a lot of money. They're not pulling a game out of their rear ends and running it on pixie dust.
It seem rare for a MMO that was once P2P and converted to a Subless model, to ever try B2P model instead of F2P model.
GW2 should be a major figure in the pro-B2P model, but I still dont see much support for it.
Warhammer Online may be a crappy game, but I wouldnt mind playing it and overlooking it's flaws if it were a one time buy, instead of needing to go just F2P.
At least developers can get box sells with that model as well as the F2P item shops.
I just dont get it. Why is the B2P model being skipped?
A very good question.
As far as I can tell, the reasoning for such is as follows:
Even though F2P has emerged as the dominant business model, and has been used for years now, many studios still don't properly understand how to implement it without hurting their own game. Since B2P isn't used much atm, no studio really wants to take a risk with it. A similar problem to what F2P had some years back.
That said, when switching from a subscription model, your game is usually in triage mode. You are trying to stop it from bleeding players any more. Because of this it usually makes more sense to completely remove the payment barrier (F2P) than to keep a smaller one in place (B2P). B2P as a model tends to work better from launch.
Originally posted by shalissar Because B2P by itself with no cash shop probably can't even keep the servers alive and the people running it paid. Do you really think that 3-4 months worth of subscription money per customer is going to do that? REALLY? Time to tune into reality, folks. Things cost money, a lot of money. They're not pulling a game out of their rear ends and running it on pixie dust.
Sooo diablo 3 is running on pixie dust? :O
Doesn't even categorize in the discussion. I was going to type a long response to this, but everything I thought of sounded mean and it's not worth it.
Originally posted by shalissar Because B2P by itself with no cash shop probably can't even keep the servers alive and the people running it paid. Do you really think that 3-4 months worth of subscription money per customer is going to do that? REALLY? Time to tune into reality, folks. Things cost money, a lot of money. They're not pulling a game out of their rear ends and running it on pixie dust.
Sooo diablo 3 is running on pixie dust? :O
That's what people probably tryign to say. If you manage to sell 15 million copies, you probably won't have problem keep the server running. Not to mention Diablo 3 cost much cheaper to make compare to a standard MMORPG.
Most mmorpg probably wont' sell that many copies. And they are still seeing a huge amount of money to keep updating the game.
F2P is also a marketing tool, not just a payment model.
It helps to attract a lot of additional players, some of which you can then hopefully convert to paying customers.
The influx of the new players also helps to keep servers at healthy stable populations (empty servers are a downward spiral and you most likely aren't haphazardly switching models while running a healthy game)
Choosing B2P as new model instead goes against the main reason of why you are switching.
It won't attract anywhere near as many new players as F2P would, the same initial paywall is still there, just like with P2P before. You have only switched your payment model basically.
B2P is great for a game like GW2 though, that already had heavy marketing and was hyped up into the stratosphere. They already knew the players are coming and they had a good shop implementation to counter having no monthly fee.
How do you convert from subscription to buy to play? If people who already bought a box just don't have to pay anymore, then you're not getting any more revenue from former subscribers--a.k.a., your entire current player base. If they now have to buy another box to continue playing, that will be seen as an unfair price hike.
Originally posted by Quizzical How do you convert from subscription to buy to play? If people who already bought a box just don't have to pay anymore, then you're not getting any more revenue from former subscribers--a.k.a., your entire current player base. If they now have to buy another box to continue playing, that will be seen as an unfair price hike.
You could do this when releasing a new expansion/DLC (no more sub fees, but if you want the new content, you have to buy it). You could also add a cash shop to sell things that players want.
The only game that I can think of that has gone from required Box + Sub to just required Box (+ Optional Sub + Cash Shop) is The Secret World.
It seem rare for a MMO that was once P2P and converted to a Subless model, to ever try B2P model instead of F2P model.
GW2 should be a major figure in the pro-B2P model, but I still dont see much support for it.
Warhammer Online may be a crappy game, but I wouldnt mind playing it and overlooking it's flaws if it were a one time buy, instead of needing to go just F2P.
At least developers can get box sells with that model as well as the F2P item shops.
I just dont get it. Why is the B2P model being skipped?
If a capped $15 a month subscription wasn't profitable, then a one time expense definitely won't be. However, what you're suggesting is a box fee barrier in front of a F2P game. Hopefully the description I used there explains why that's a bad idea.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Quizzical How do you convert from subscription to buy to play? If people who already bought a box just don't have to pay anymore, then you're not getting any more revenue from former subscribers--a.k.a., your entire current player base. If they now have to buy another box to continue playing, that will be seen as an unfair price hike.
You could do this when releasing a new expansion/DLC (no more sub fees, but if you want the new content, you have to buy it). You could also add a cash shop to sell things that players want.
The only game that I can think of that has gone from required Box + Sub to just required Box (+ Optional Sub + Cash Shop) is The Secret World.
TSW did manage to pull it off well and shows that paid DLC packs can work if the content is compelling. For instance issues 7 and 8 plus the side stories packs had no new features or additional content besides quests and all indications is most players have them. I think a couple factors play into this with TSW. The progression system is not as level locked as most games meaning there is value in things like XP pots and the bonuses the optional sub gives you even after you reach "end game". The game's gear system encourages people to play around with the appearance items and it's built to support it well. And finally the quests are more than go here and kill this types of things even if many of the tasks inside them very much are. They tell stories and at least try to engage players a bit and interest them in seeing the new content released.
Even with all that TSW recently released slot machine lock boxes to the game. The lure of easy money is just to much I guess for most companies.
If you count player base game industry wide excluding mobile I would guess B2P plus paid expansions is the predominate way multiplayer games are marketed. F2P is really a thing MMO's, MOBA's, and mobile games do. First Person Shooters are almost all B2P.
Lets just sell the damn game to people... what people coin as B2P today but is essentially the way ALL games were marketed before the advent of silly things like bottled water and lattes.
You complete everything there is to do in the game? Well we've got something just for that... it's called an expansion! Yep, you buy the expansion and you get more content! Amazing isn't it?
So in recap, you buy the game and you can play it for as long as your machine will still run it or until the inevitable global nuclear apocalypse known as a server shut down. You get free bug fixes and balancing fixes. Nothing else beyond what shipped with the game.
Expansions are unique, meaning they DON'T share the same game space as the original versions. Server gods can implement separate servers per expansion OR implement a phasing scheme that separates players from each expansion so that NONE of the skills, et al, travel backwards in time. You want to play the game as it was, you must start there... once you migrate to the next expansion, there is no going backwards without starting over anew. This way, players can play the game as it was intended 10 years from now, not just during the first few months of it's release.
This notion that you need to have everyone on the planet pay some fee to play a game on line every time they log in is absurd. We've been playing multiplayer games online for years and they managed to keep afloat with a simple box price. Imagine that.
Except that people had to pay to keep a server going in the past. My clan had a server in Quake 3 and I paid every 6 months to keep it going and also gave time to help administer it. In this case, a few paid so that others could play. It was a willing donation of time and money but the point is that it was still paid.
Originally posted by Moirae Because they make more money with f2p by nickle and diming people to death. With b2p, they make money once on the game and that's it.
Once only? For mmo's, that's not true in most cases. B2P with cash shop. Even in single player games they make money now on dlc. There are games that make money once but in the sphere of this site, not many.
Originally posted by shalissar Because B2P by itself with no cash shop probably can't even keep the servers alive and the people running it paid. Do you really think that 3-4 months worth of subscription money per customer is going to do that? REALLY? Time to tune into reality, folks. Things cost money, a lot of money. They're not pulling a game out of their rear ends and running it on pixie dust.
Sooo diablo 3 is running on pixie dust? :O
Doesn't even categorize in the discussion. I was going to type a long response to this, but everything I thought of sounded mean and it's not worth it.
Hmmmmmmm. Dota 2 then? Or League of Legends? Or GTA V Online? Man that pixie dust must be all over the place.
Outside of trolling silly comments like this one though, the reason i believe P2P completely disregards B2P is actually quite simple. P2P never converts business model in the first couple of months, most of the times it even takes years. Once the time comes, whoever wanted to play the game, has already tried it one or way or another so even if they remove the sub, they'll be left with close to no income. I mean sure the PR team will probably spin "Hey guys look, you can enjoy this great game without subscriptions now, just a box price, how cool is that!" And I'm certain that this will attract some amount of new players, but it won't be even close to the number that would make the publisher happy about that move.
They could introduce a cash shop. That will vaporize a big chunk of P2P players because lets face it, some of them are like the grammar nazis. You either say "you're" right, or you are going to get a shitstorm of profanity toward you.
Converting P2P is really a tough choice to make. It has a great risk.
tl;dr - In my honest opinion, you either start B2P with/without cash shop, or you damn it for good. Although I personally don't mind buying games as B2P (In fact i prefer it this way), I can see the issue with other people.
You people need to understand that MMOs are HUGE cash cows. That is why every developer left and right, AAA or indy has been and is jumping on the bandwagon for the quick buck. Some succeed, some don't. MMOs are not necessarily more expensive games than their single player counterparts and nor are more expensive to manage.
I mean come on ... How much do you think it costs to make and maintain a game like Scarlet Blade?
And studios like Cryptic have an engine for MMO games. They can spew games every other month. And they'll look complete at first glance to get that return on investment that everyone is so desparate about.
Server costs are going down. The sole reason the subscription has been flat $15. Remember, no one will sell you something that will make them lose money. There is always profit. Stop victimizing game studios.
I currently play Allods Online. The ftp model there is terrible, thats why i play on sub server in allods. No cashhop or runes but gear and skill.
The pop is low but players do selfpromotion and raids are possible . ALlods even made a great deal 6 month for 24€ and its not a asian game i am talking about, but a great game.
P.S. They could do B2P + Optional Sub, but that would be such a minor change that most people would not see it.
You know, I think that would be the best of both worlds for all devs (who want to even consider F2P in any form) to go with. And it would also be a benefit to players.
In either case, they get the initial box sale, so that's a confirmed sale. The player has invested in the game already.
At that point, they can offer 2 models - but it has to be two very distinct models, and "the food can't touch on the plate" so to speak.
Have one model that is standard B2P - initial box fee with Cash Shop support thereafter for additional income. They can set it up in whatever way their players are willing to put up with (and that threshold is pretty high, considering no sub fee).
Have the other model an optional standard monthly sub, which allows players to bypass the cash shop entirely.
Whatever handicaps or limits are in place for F2P players must be removed for subscribers. No reminders on screen. No "Item Shop!" button on the interface for "easy access". A subscribing player should see and experience the game as a true subscription game - sans cash shop. It's fair, because at that point, they're getting a guaranteed $15 a month for as long as each subscriber is playing, whereas they're not guaranteed anything beyond the initial box fee with a F2P player.
In both cases, they should sell expansion packs, and I mean true expansion packs. Not mini adventure packs, or 'quest packs' like LoTRO does (man I hate that). None of the nickel and diming crap. Actual, proper expansions that add huge amounts of content to the game - entire new areas, numerous new dungeons, new classes (if applicable), etc...
In that scenario, each type of player gets their preferred experience. Those who don't like a sub, but are open to throwing a few extra bucks at the shop now and again can do that. Those who don't even want to know a cash shop exists, nor have it affect their gameplay, can subscribe and get a more pure gaming experience, rather than one with a virtual shopping mall mixed in.
Think of it like the difference between commercial-supported TV versus commercial-free TV. Non-subbing players would get the commercial-supported version. Subscribers would get the commercial-free version.
Personally, I'd be perfectly on board with such a setup. Of course, I know that won't happen, because I didn't include Cash Shop in the sub option and a developer wouldn't be able to double dip the players in that case.
And as we know, Cash Shops do not benefit the player. They benefit the developer.
I feel that a game connected to a server that needs constant monitoring should have a monthly cost. A b2p payment model gives the business one payment for years of service then they are forced to add cash shops and other things for income. To me I think the b2p is the least honest and efficient of the three main business models. At least f2p are up front about what they're doing for a monthly income.
Comments
B2P is a bit misleading, if a game has a cash shop, at whatever level of integration, then its actually a F2P game with a box price, a true B2P game would not have a cash shop of any kind.
When converting a P2P MMO, B2P is not a consideration because it would mean not having a cash shop in the game, and since continued revenue is a necessity, the B2P option would actually be a hindrance, whereas removing the box price altogether encourages people to at least try the game, which is basically what happened with SW;TOR etc.
I think the only example of an actual B2P game was GW1, a lobby game rather than an MMO, where most of the work was handed off to the players own PC, which obviously saved on resources, though even then the game relied on continued sales of numerous expansion packs to keep the game running.
I am not sure that 'floundering' is the right word. Perhaps instead, we could call it something like 'record highs' or even 'substantial growth'.
I recognize that some games like Destiny have been vastly disappointing for many. The reliance on P2P marketing techniques is old school, and has led to people feeling like they got ripped off. However, this did incite growth in the user base (even if unsatisfied).
IMO the most logical answer is this one.. Those who were willing to pay the upfront cost of subscriptions and boxes already have, so it's not tapping a new market and lessens the possibility of potential growth that F2P would bring.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Only Destiny isn't an MMORPG.
Also, a while back I took a look at some of the data on the video game market (from reports generated by the Entertainment Software Rating Board website) and posted in another thread discussing the MMORPG genre's health. While the genre isn't losing revenue (as a whole), it IS "floundering" compared to the other genres of gaming. It's growth (you'd be hard-pressed to find a genre that ISN'T "growing" year over year, as gaming in general is growing) is much less than almost every other genre of gaming (and specifically online gaming).
MMORPGs aren't releasing household names. And the genre (market share-wise) is suffering for it. Their introduction to consoles also hasn't been incredible (we'll see how ESO does).
Come on, man, it was all fluff: more titles, more emotes, more quests, more bank space, cosmetic pets, more music, dragon bones, housing, minigames, exclusive server access. There were a few more skills available to paying customers, but they weren't skills necessary to "win better" than f2p players, only make other actions more efficient. In pvp, for example, f2p players had no disadvantage to paying players.
Lets just sell the damn game to people... what people coin as B2P today but is essentially the way ALL games were marketed before the advent of silly things like bottled water and lattes.
You complete everything there is to do in the game? Well we've got something just for that... it's called an expansion! Yep, you buy the expansion and you get more content! Amazing isn't it?
So in recap, you buy the game and you can play it for as long as your machine will still run it or until the inevitable global nuclear apocalypse known as a server shut down. You get free bug fixes and balancing fixes. Nothing else beyond what shipped with the game.
Expansions are unique, meaning they DON'T share the same game space as the original versions. Server gods can implement separate servers per expansion OR implement a phasing scheme that separates players from each expansion so that NONE of the skills, et al, travel backwards in time. You want to play the game as it was, you must start there... once you migrate to the next expansion, there is no going backwards without starting over anew. This way, players can play the game as it was intended 10 years from now, not just during the first few months of it's release.
This notion that you need to have everyone on the planet pay some fee to play a game on line every time they log in is absurd. We've been playing multiplayer games online for years and they managed to keep afloat with a simple box price. Imagine that.
Sooo diablo 3 is running on pixie dust? :O
A very good question.
As far as I can tell, the reasoning for such is as follows:
Even though F2P has emerged as the dominant business model, and has been used for years now, many studios still don't properly understand how to implement it without hurting their own game. Since B2P isn't used much atm, no studio really wants to take a risk with it. A similar problem to what F2P had some years back.
That said, when switching from a subscription model, your game is usually in triage mode. You are trying to stop it from bleeding players any more. Because of this it usually makes more sense to completely remove the payment barrier (F2P) than to keep a smaller one in place (B2P). B2P as a model tends to work better from launch.
Doesn't even categorize in the discussion. I was going to type a long response to this, but everything I thought of sounded mean and it's not worth it.
That's what people probably tryign to say. If you manage to sell 15 million copies, you probably won't have problem keep the server running. Not to mention Diablo 3 cost much cheaper to make compare to a standard MMORPG.
Most mmorpg probably wont' sell that many copies. And they are still seeing a huge amount of money to keep updating the game.
F2P is also a marketing tool, not just a payment model.
It helps to attract a lot of additional players, some of which you can then hopefully convert to paying customers.
The influx of the new players also helps to keep servers at healthy stable populations (empty servers are a downward spiral and you most likely aren't haphazardly switching models while running a healthy game)
Choosing B2P as new model instead goes against the main reason of why you are switching.
It won't attract anywhere near as many new players as F2P would, the same initial paywall is still there, just like with P2P before. You have only switched your payment model basically.
B2P is great for a game like GW2 though, that already had heavy marketing and was hyped up into the stratosphere. They already knew the players are coming and they had a good shop implementation to counter having no monthly fee.
You could do this when releasing a new expansion/DLC (no more sub fees, but if you want the new content, you have to buy it). You could also add a cash shop to sell things that players want.
The only game that I can think of that has gone from required Box + Sub to just required Box (+ Optional Sub + Cash Shop) is The Secret World.
If a capped $15 a month subscription wasn't profitable, then a one time expense definitely won't be. However, what you're suggesting is a box fee barrier in front of a F2P game. Hopefully the description I used there explains why that's a bad idea.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
TSW did manage to pull it off well and shows that paid DLC packs can work if the content is compelling. For instance issues 7 and 8 plus the side stories packs had no new features or additional content besides quests and all indications is most players have them. I think a couple factors play into this with TSW. The progression system is not as level locked as most games meaning there is value in things like XP pots and the bonuses the optional sub gives you even after you reach "end game". The game's gear system encourages people to play around with the appearance items and it's built to support it well. And finally the quests are more than go here and kill this types of things even if many of the tasks inside them very much are. They tell stories and at least try to engage players a bit and interest them in seeing the new content released.
Even with all that TSW recently released slot machine lock boxes to the game. The lure of easy money is just to much I guess for most companies.
If you count player base game industry wide excluding mobile I would guess B2P plus paid expansions is the predominate way multiplayer games are marketed. F2P is really a thing MMO's, MOBA's, and mobile games do. First Person Shooters are almost all B2P.
Except that people had to pay to keep a server going in the past. My clan had a server in Quake 3 and I paid every 6 months to keep it going and also gave time to help administer it. In this case, a few paid so that others could play. It was a willing donation of time and money but the point is that it was still paid.
Once only? For mmo's, that's not true in most cases. B2P with cash shop. Even in single player games they make money now on dlc. There are games that make money once but in the sphere of this site, not many.
Hmmmmmmm. Dota 2 then? Or League of Legends? Or GTA V Online? Man that pixie dust must be all over the place.
Outside of trolling silly comments like this one though, the reason i believe P2P completely disregards B2P is actually quite simple. P2P never converts business model in the first couple of months, most of the times it even takes years. Once the time comes, whoever wanted to play the game, has already tried it one or way or another so even if they remove the sub, they'll be left with close to no income. I mean sure the PR team will probably spin "Hey guys look, you can enjoy this great game without subscriptions now, just a box price, how cool is that!" And I'm certain that this will attract some amount of new players, but it won't be even close to the number that would make the publisher happy about that move.
They could introduce a cash shop. That will vaporize a big chunk of P2P players because lets face it, some of them are like the grammar nazis. You either say "you're" right, or you are going to get a shitstorm of profanity toward you.
Converting P2P is really a tough choice to make. It has a great risk.
tl;dr - In my honest opinion, you either start B2P with/without cash shop, or you damn it for good. Although I personally don't mind buying games as B2P (In fact i prefer it this way), I can see the issue with other people.
You people need to understand that MMOs are HUGE cash cows. That is why every developer left and right, AAA or indy has been and is jumping on the bandwagon for the quick buck. Some succeed, some don't. MMOs are not necessarily more expensive games than their single player counterparts and nor are more expensive to manage.
I mean come on ... How much do you think it costs to make and maintain a game like Scarlet Blade?
And studios like Cryptic have an engine for MMO games. They can spew games every other month. And they'll look complete at first glance to get that return on investment that everyone is so desparate about.
Server costs are going down. The sole reason the subscription has been flat $15. Remember, no one will sell you something that will make them lose money. There is always profit. Stop victimizing game studios.
I currently play Allods Online. The ftp model there is terrible, thats why i play on sub server in allods. No cashhop or runes but gear and skill.
The pop is low but players do selfpromotion and raids are possible
. ALlods even made a great deal 6 month for 24€ and its not a asian game i am talking about, but a great game.
Greetings Taleron
You know, I think that would be the best of both worlds for all devs (who want to even consider F2P in any form) to go with. And it would also be a benefit to players.
In either case, they get the initial box sale, so that's a confirmed sale. The player has invested in the game already.
At that point, they can offer 2 models - but it has to be two very distinct models, and "the food can't touch on the plate" so to speak.
Have one model that is standard B2P - initial box fee with Cash Shop support thereafter for additional income. They can set it up in whatever way their players are willing to put up with (and that threshold is pretty high, considering no sub fee).
Have the other model an optional standard monthly sub, which allows players to bypass the cash shop entirely.
Whatever handicaps or limits are in place for F2P players must be removed for subscribers. No reminders on screen. No "Item Shop!" button on the interface for "easy access". A subscribing player should see and experience the game as a true subscription game - sans cash shop. It's fair, because at that point, they're getting a guaranteed $15 a month for as long as each subscriber is playing, whereas they're not guaranteed anything beyond the initial box fee with a F2P player.
In both cases, they should sell expansion packs, and I mean true expansion packs. Not mini adventure packs, or 'quest packs' like LoTRO does (man I hate that). None of the nickel and diming crap. Actual, proper expansions that add huge amounts of content to the game - entire new areas, numerous new dungeons, new classes (if applicable), etc...
In that scenario, each type of player gets their preferred experience. Those who don't like a sub, but are open to throwing a few extra bucks at the shop now and again can do that. Those who don't even want to know a cash shop exists, nor have it affect their gameplay, can subscribe and get a more pure gaming experience, rather than one with a virtual shopping mall mixed in.
Think of it like the difference between commercial-supported TV versus commercial-free TV. Non-subbing players would get the commercial-supported version. Subscribers would get the commercial-free version.
Personally, I'd be perfectly on board with such a setup. Of course, I know that won't happen, because I didn't include Cash Shop in the sub option and a developer wouldn't be able to double dip the players in that case.
And as we know, Cash Shops do not benefit the player. They benefit the developer.