Jump to content

XLGAMES' first creation was a racing MMO called XL1.
Welcome to ArcheAge Source
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Payment method for EU


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
85 replies to this topic

#41
Nobody_Anybody

Nobody_Anybody

    Community Member

  • Members
  • PipPip

Rift's model is actually one of the very F2P options that make 95% of the cash shop items total vanity, whether for optional clothing or player housing. The core game itself is pretty much wide open with no paygates.

Nothing is vanity and every ingame item touches the core of the game.
These days I see people defending cash-shop that only have skin items and other fluff (like mini companions) like if that does not effect the game. And if you say it does they ask how there mini can fight for them.

 

But it's or course not all about combat. Collecting skins is for many people also a way of playing an RPG.. Better. It's not for nothing a role playing game making that sort of actions indeed the core of a game.

 

I still hope they will use a B2P model. No cash-shop (or almost no cash-shop) and no subscription but regular expansions. Much as you did see with GW1 but also with games like The Sims.

 

Only time will tell.



#42
Nobody_Anybody

Nobody_Anybody

    Community Member

  • Members
  • PipPip

That's been the general idea, getting as close to that same type of vision as possible. 

 

Some things we do in Rift don't directly translate, but the spirit is the same: Open up as much as humanly possible, make sure purchases truly feel like a value add people are happy about.

 

One example: We have to be a little more careful with purely free players with AA than we do on Rift, since AA's economy game is a very real thing, we have to make sure floods of fake free accounts don't break that part of the game.  If something gets broken there, it could cascade into the crafting game, and so on. 

 

We have to be a little protective of what makes AA unique and special, without just throwing up barriers. It's going to be a careful balancing act.

 

We'll see how close to that we're able to get, but those have been our guiding principles so far.

 

- Scott

 

As soon as you allow ingame items to be sold you effect the game. Even if they are not value. Even worse, many times you will see the game will be designed around the idea of "how do we get people to buy those items". have a look at GW2. They made many items world drops, meaning you can't farm for specific items. So it becomes grinding gold. Extremely boring. Of course you can also buy gold. Very nice but now you made a big part of the game boring.

 

Also the idea that when it does not effect combat it does not effect the game is flawed, especially in a RPG game. In a FPS where combat is the make thing that might work but not in a RPG.

 

You don't want those problems and you don't want people making a lot of free accounts.

 

Make the system I said before. No cash-shop but just box-sales and release an expansion every year / year and a half. It;s what made GW1 big and The Sims are also making a lot of money that way. (To bad that The Sims also release DLC inbetween, thats a little bid to much of it or it should be included in the next expansion as well)



Why not a B2P ( 60$ ) and free accounts? With this, ppl who dont want buy the game can play it without spend cash. They will have some limitations, like LP regeneration.

The B2P accounts instead, will have LP regeneration.

Both accounts can buy LP potions ( if it is in korea, we MUST have it here. Game breaking? maybe, but i want to play the same AA that all the world play )

With this, you will be sure that fake accounts will be "controlled" and all ppl can be happy.

So you want something that is game breaking because the rest of the world has is?
I agree for the most part, but don't sell anything in game. No items, no LP potions nothing.

 

Release an expansion on a regular base to keep generatin money on the longer term. Thats the only way you know you don't effect the game itself in a negative way and you don't have to use P2P that seem to fail so many times.



I don't think that is sustainable. Think about it. How long does that 60 bucks last? There are costs involved with servers and maintenance. Updates and patches. Adding new content. And everything that goes along with it. You need to have a continuous flow of income to keep online games going. You can either make that with monthly subscription fees. Or shop items. I kind of like the idea of monthly fees and shop items that don't give players an unfair advantage. If you pay monthly you should be able to get those items through quests or areas that are not available to non paying members. 

"You can either make that with monthly subscription fees. Or shop items." Or sell expansions.
 

Many games run there MP game on the initial box sales until a new release or an expansion. Yes indeed you need to keep generating income on a regular base but that does not have to be on a daily basis. Shop-items ALWAYS effect the game.



#43
Alasondra

Alasondra

    Community Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip

I am in no way defending the F2P model or cash shops of any type. I merely made reference to Rift's model vs most others. You are correct however, as any item in a cash shop is an item that a crafter cannot make and sell on their own within the game world, thus negatively affecting the economy from the very beginning. Your B2P/No cash shop/No sub model concept fails though when you attempt to apply it to a game such as ArcheAge. It worked with the original GW as, while it was a nice little game, it had no where near the complexity that AA does, nor will it harbor the same type of player base. AA's core player group will be much more demanding in terms of content and features, and that translates directly into a need for higher revenue than a B2P model can sustain.

 

In the end, ArcheAge can only survive (financially) on a model of: Subscription, F2P with a wide base Cash Shop, or combination of both. All three models however, will cast a different tone over the game and garner different types of players.


"We need to enhance our security..."


#44
Nobody_Anybody

Nobody_Anybody

    Community Member

  • Members
  • PipPip

A F2P model give more money than any fee system.
See GuildWars2. B2P with an ingame shop that dont have ANY P2W item.
Put a semi P2W item, and you will have a great anount of money.
With the B2P and F2P system you will have players that will pay for items constantly, players who pay for some items and another players that never pay.

 

Well GW2 also shows that even with no P2W items. The game gets negatively effect by the items. I loved to collect mini's in many mmo's. That whole game element is totally ruined in GW2. Same for most other items. It's all just a damm boring gold grind. Makes sense as you can buy mini's and gold with money. So they make sure people are more likely to buy that.



#45
Nobody_Anybody

Nobody_Anybody

    Community Member

  • Members
  • PipPip

I am in no way defending the F2P model or cash shops of any type. I merely made reference to Rift's model vs most others. You are correct however, as any item in a cash shop is an item that a crafter cannot make and sell on their own within the game world, thus negatively affecting the economy from the very beginning. Your B2P/No cash shop/No sub model concept fails though when you attempt to apply it to a game such as ArcheAge. It worked with the original GW as, while it was a nice little game, it had no where near the complexity that AA does, nor will it harbor the same type of player base. AA's core player group will be much more demanding in terms of content and features, and that translates directly into a need for higher revenue than a B2P model can sustain.

 

In the end, ArcheAge can only survive (financially) on a model of: Subscription, F2P with a wide base Cash Shop, or combination of both. All three models however, will cast a different tone over the game and garner different types of players.

 

"AA's core player group will be much more demanding in terms of content and features, and that translates directly into a need for higher revenue than a B2P model can sustain." Luckely an expansion is a place where you can put in a lot of thet demanded new content and features.

 

Nobody here has the exact figures of how many money one model generates over the other so the idea that a expansion based model would not be able so substain can not be made.

 

Fact is that if you have a model that fails it can also not support the game. And with a game like ArcheAge you need to be very carefull it does not effect the game. Like I said before, a cahs-shop always does that in a RPG because every element is a form of gameplay for somebody.

 

P2P has proven itself to not work that good as it failed over and over again over the last 9 nears. But then again. We will see what the future will bring us.



#46
Alasondra

Alasondra

    Community Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip

Thus far, Eve & WoW haven't exactly proven themselves to be failures.

And as you do not have exact figures either, your claim is void as well.

But believe what you wish to.


"We need to enhance our security..."


#47
Fox Soul

Fox Soul

    Community Member

  • Members
  • PipPip

Thus far, Eve & WoW haven't exactly proven themselves to be failures.

And as you do not have exact figures either, your claim is void as well.

But believe what you wish to.

 

 

I dont know anything about Thus Far, but Eve and WoW are old games that have enough publicity to mantain themselves. They have a really big fanboy's players that will aprove everything, even if is a fail like pandaria. 

AA, at least in Europe, have a low publicity and low hype. This means that we dont have a high player base. AT least, now. Maybe in 3-6 months, when the game will be released is different. But now, a sub mode will kill this game because if some ppl could play this game, with a sub mode they maybe wont play.

Yes, some people will pay anyway but we are talking about making money. They dont care about P2W, fun or nothing.

Generally, ppl want to pay for what they want. If they have the money, they will play, even casuals.

But well, you are stacking in an old system. Good for you. But you know, update always is good.


gLtnf2V.png

Thank you Sureikan!


#48
Kriptini

Kriptini

    Community Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip

Thus far, Eve & WoW haven't exactly proven themselves to be failures.


EVE and WoW are outliers. AA tried to run on sub once and failed. AA is a game that needs lots of people and lots of people who stick around. F2P makes it easiest for players to accommodate this need.

#49
Alasondra

Alasondra

    Community Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip

It failed in "Korea"...


"We need to enhance our security..."


#50
Kriptini

Kriptini

    Community Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip

It failed in "Korea"...


I'm not up for giving it a second chance in NA, because if it doesn't explode in popularity, it will just switch to F2P down the line.

#51
Alasondra

Alasondra

    Community Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip

I would be. It's worth taking the chance before deciding to ruin it entirely.


"We need to enhance our security..."


#52
Melancholy

Melancholy

    Community Member

  • Members
  • PipPip

P2P has proven itself to not work that good as it failed over and over again over the last 9 nears. But then again. We will see what the future will bring us.

 

Not the P2P system failed. The games did.



#53
Kriptini

Kriptini

    Community Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip

I would be. It's worth taking the chance before deciding to ruin it entirely.


Anti-F2P mentality is so 2004.

#54
Inporylem

Inporylem

    Donater

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip

I didn't care about payment model on uo:r era when everyone was botting and buying gold the difference back then was that games like uo:r that I keep as the only true sandbox I have seen didn't revolve around farming better gear since there were no gear.

 

The theme park aspects of games makes the game shit I don't think payment model has anything to do with it. If you can buy success in game with gold it's shit anyway, doesn't matter if you buy it with ingame gold or irl. Most of the people will disagree on this since there are a lot more theme park fans in the world. Sandboxes won't get ruined by payment model theme parks will :P And since aa is a pretty generic theme park by now f2p is the worse choice for it.



#55
Zev

Zev

    Community Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip

But the fact is that you won't be killing any bots, because they will be boting in safe zones...

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!



#56
Kriptini

Kriptini

    Community Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip

Sandboxes won't get ruined by payment model theme parks will :P

 

I disagree, I think that base payment model (F2P/P2P/B2P) has little to do with game sub-genre and everything to do with the size of a player-base. For a smaller player-base, F2P is better because it lowers the barrier of entry and allows you to increase your player-base, and a game needs a large player-base if it wants to be an MMO. The specifics of a payment model (sub price, items sold in cash shops, or advertisements played during gameplay) can greatly impact a game based on its sub-genre, but I don't think the model foundation itself can automatically kill a game.



#57
Alasondra

Alasondra

    Community Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip

"Anti-F2P mentality is so 2004"

 

Well I guess that settles it. I must be old enough for my opinion to not be valid.

 

Got it... ;)


"We need to enhance our security..."


#58
Frizzlyrizzly

Frizzlyrizzly

    Community Member

  • Members
  • PipPip

the thing Krip is trying to say,  like it or not Archeage in Sub base on the western market would flat out fail, especially that now some heavily branded , monetized games are coming out like Wildstar and Eso, and sure you can tell me something like "but archeage is a sandbox it is in a different market" if you told me that months ago I would agree with you but atm it is more and more turning to a normal themepark with ships, on the other hand if archeage would go f2p with premium sub option the game will Boom in popularity and have a great number of players playing it for quite a while 



#59
Kuro1n

Kuro1n

    Community Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip

P2P games could work in today's world but it is not the easiest way to go about it as the competition is fierce on the market and you need to bring something unique and larger feature to the table to actually succeed such a business model. 



#60
Kuro1n

Kuro1n

    Community Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip

P2P games could work in today's world but it is not the easiest way to go about it as the competition is fierce on the market and you need to bring something unique and larger feature to the table to actually succeed such a business model.