255 replies to this topic

[Zeronium]

Best possible way of doing things would be that you pay for the time that you actually play. So if you buy let's say a week of playtime it would be 7x 24h = 168h of playtime, instead of paying 15€ for 30 days where you lose almost half of that time to sleeping (at least semi-normal people do). It could cost a bit more overall to buy the time, but it would be much better option. For people who don't play games constantly for example, my friend said to me that he doesn't want another P2P game cause he doesn't play that much overall so he feels like he's losing money.

[Jojin]

Best possible way of doing things would be that you pay for the time that you actually play. So if you buy let's say a week of playtime it would be 7x 24h = 168h of playtime, instead of paying 15€ for 30 days where you lose almost half of that time to sleeping (at least semi-normal people do). It could cost a bit more overall to buy the time, but it would be much better option. For people who don't play games constantly for example, my friend said to me that he doesn't want another P2P game cause he doesn't play that much overall so he feels like he's losing money.

Many eastern MMOs, especially in China, use the pay time to play method. I think this is more so because of the different ISP and Telco's than just the actual gaming company.

For the western market I don't think pay for time will fly. A long time ago online games did charge for time online, but then shifted away from such to flat fees. Today, the typical MMO monthly fee is next to nothing for an expense, especially given the amount of time you are given for the entertainment.

Personally I think the flat fee also gives for better planning, profits and upgrades; you can build your internal structure to support a fixed number of users and know exactly how much revenue you have to work with.

[Cavarath]

Sorry but that system sucks. 15$/13€ are really nothing. Its like going to cinema and buy some popcorn.
For the latter you get 2 hours of entertainment. Look at how much you from the MMO.

Buying the time itself will cost tons and tons more money. At last for people that are playing more than 2 hours a day.
Saying you want to pay for the time is like saying you dont want an Internet flatrate but pay by minutes.

[Zeronium]

Well overall I prefer Pay to Play instead of Item Store F2P, with just ONE exception, that the game company DOES NOT add some STUPID "cashshoppy" things like Aion did. If I pay for a game monthly why the hell do they make it so that I'd have to pay for extra game content too? Like pets & such.

[Drul]

Definately P2P Subscription Model without shops and microtransactions.

If this game will go f2p/ subscription+microtransactions ,etc model I won't play it even if it is good.

I've just quit Lortro cause of shop and f2p even thou it is quite "soft" model there , it is going more and more in p2w.


Besides sandbox (even partially) mmorpg and item/cash store = big fail.
Even bigger than in thameparks games.


Pros of P2P:

- What you achieve in game in though playing not paying (Most important advantage for me)
- Developers produce content to keep players playing and paying subscription , not produce instant gratification stuff to get more and more not-so-small bits of money out of you all the time
- P2P provide more equality (ofc it is still not 100% equal but more than F2P)
- Balance , mechanics , etc are made with gameplay in mind not with "make players spend more money in store" in mind
- After all it is bit cheaper
- Developers and publishers can predict and monitor income more accurately

Cons:
- none?


So best imho and only I would be interested in would be P2P subscription model with free patches/updates and paid game/expansions and without any ingame store.

I am ready to pay more than average in mmorpg's monthly subscripton fee. It is still one of best deals one can make. Almost all other entertainment is more costly (cinemas, dvd, books, hobbies, most sports ,etc).

[Sicarii]

What about Buy 2 Play (Guild Wars model). You buy the game once and after that you can just keep playing it without a monthly subscription fee, if you ask me this is the best and most honest system.

[Drul]

I don't want to derail this topic so if it will derail then I ask moderator to move my post to separate topic to Bottomless Pit., well anyway.

GW I is very heavily instanced game and it is cheaper to develop and sustain this kind of game (even on servers hardware side)) , it is not game with persistent world. It is diffrent kind of game, also if you count how much you spent money if you buy all frequent GW I expansions at prices right after they were released , you will find out that it was not so much cheaper.

Not to mention that there is item shop in GW I. It is mostly fluff but there is one.

Well anyway there is no possible to sustain massive persistent world like Archage on B2P model, unless there would be expansions released like every 2 months. This would be costly and contradictionary on many many levels to what AA propably will be/aims to be.

As for GW2 , how microtransactions will look in GW2 we will see after release.

So GW and AA will be very diffrent kind of games , and imho B2P can be used in GW but would propably be impossible in AA. Not to mention that there is item shop and microtransactions in GW. Judging from this topic almost all ppl here don't want to have it in AA (myself included).

I think we'll see more and more diffrence in games we all call today mmorpg's (thou I have doubt GW is one but that just me) , already there are kind of sub-genres creating. And becasue they are and will continue to be more and more diffrent to each other they will use diffrent business models. Just compare f.e Eve Online, Guild Wars, WoW, UO and DDO. Totally diffrent games even though many people still call all of them mmorpg. That will change in future though as online gaming is developing more and more.

So for AA imho only P2P without microtransactions "fit" with game and is way to go.

[Caduryn]

Hm.... KieraKittie....that reminds me on someone called KieraBunny, who in reallity was a Beaver because killing all Trees in Dawntide.

On Topic: I allways prefer P2P, its allways more quality behind it.

[Over My Head]

I have only had bad experiences with F2P system. It tends to draw more immature people, and the there's always a 'but': for that region you have to buy this, then that, ...

I prefer to pay to play. The whole package, no hum drum.

[PsychoPigeon]

I have yet to play a monthly subscription based MMO that hasn't just flopped after a few months, the only example of a healthy populated game is WoW and that's it. No one wants to pay monthly for it, yet when it goes F2P people flood back into the game and a breath a new life rushes through the once dead game.

I played a game called Archlord, Code Masters started off using the monthly payment method but quickly made it F2P and the population of the game shot up. Most of these F2P games sell items you don't really need or you can buy with in-game currency. They also have great communities too with lots of guild drama to laugh at or get involved in.

As for game support, being F2P or P2P has no factor, only ignorant people think that and keep parroting that myth trying to sound smart. If the company selling the game is bad, then it's bad. NCSOFT have terrible support, FUNCOM have terrible support. Not that I use support much, i can handle my own problems I don't need to cry to a GM like the weak minded.

If ArcheAge is a good game, normally you can tell if it's worth a sub, then it shouldn't be a problem. But if it flops there's nothing more annoying than having your gaming experienced hindered because the population drops massively and the company refuses to go F2P think they'd lose more money.

[Cavarath]

WoW the only successful subscription game?
Ever heard something about Lineage, Lineage 2, EVE, EQ, DAOC? And thats just the most successful ones.

And no you are in need of support. Or can you ban bots by yourself?
I can understand that this is no issue in F2P games because there is no need to cheat in a game where you can just buy yourself to the top, but in P2P games its needed.

PS: Little question. How much did you spend on the item shop each month in the last game you played?

[PsychoPigeon]

WoW the only successful subscription game?
Ever heard something about Lineage, Lineage 2, EVE, EQ, DAOC? And thats just the most successful ones.

And no you are in need of support. Or can you ban bots by yourself?
I can understand that this is no issue in F2P games because there is no need to cheat in a game where you can just buy yourself to the top, but in P2P games its needed.

PS: Little question. How much did you spend on the item shop each month in the last game you played?

Lineage really were not considered successful, the main player base were on private servers. I did forget about EVE and EQ though so that's 3, DAoC population dried up fast. F2P games have game masters you know, most of the time better than P2P games as they're usually in-game. So you're parroting the myth. You cannot 'buy yourself to the top' either, F2P games generally sell cosmetic items, sometimes potions which increase speed 10% or evasion, but you're trying to pretend they sell end game gear which is a lie people like to spread.

And the last F2P game I played i spent about 2 years on paying an average $10 per month, as the case in most F2P games you can buy the items with in-game currency so it's up to you.

[Jojin]

I have yet to play a monthly subscription based MMO that hasn't just flopped after a few months, the only example of a healthy populated game is WoW and that's it. No one wants to pay monthly for it, yet when it goes F2P people flood back into the game and a breath a new life rushes through the once dead game.

Your idea of 'flopped' seems to be a personal perspective on a game, which I might add seems to be limited to a Western Perspective only.

As to people flooding back into the game, well of course. If it costs nothing, then it is available to anyone who has a system and connection. Lots of these people couldn't have a chance to play even if it were a quality game because they lack the fiscal or payment methods. Another large group would be those who are just bored and want something to do to pass the time. All of this will equate to an influx of people, however, it doesn't mean the game is now successful. It just means there are more players in it. Using such logic we could say that open beta's are some of the most successful times for games.

True game success would be a measure of its profits and the quality of its community, not just how many people are playing in a F2P environment.

As for game support, being F2P or P2P has no factor, only ignorant people think that and keep parroting that myth trying to sound smart. If the company selling the game is bad, then it's bad. NCSOFT have terrible support, FUNCOM have terrible support. Not that I use support much, i can handle my own problems I don't need to cry to a GM like the weak minded.

When you are a paying customer, you can count on better customer support. Now I refer to the support where it matters; billing and account issues. Then again this is because the leverage you have as a consumer is the fact you pay for the game. This too is based on the personal experience of individuals, so it is really hard to judge, as many gamer's concept of catering to needs and support seems to be exaggerated to extremes and so do the complaints.

The one thing I know that does stand out for true F2P games, is contact information is not readily available, instead you are often relegated to tickets or knowledge bases.

If ArcheAge is a good game, normally you can tell if it's worth a sub, then it shouldn't be a problem. But if it flops there's nothing more annoying than having your gaming experienced hindered because the population drops massively and the company refuses to go F2P think they'd lose more money.

Good is relative and doesn't equate directly to population. I would rather have, since we are relegated to individual servers anyways, a small total population and less servers with a quality game and community that just play a game that boasts "subscribers". I mean Battlestar Galactica, the free to play web game, says he has over 2 million subscribers, does this mean its a game which is six (6) times better than EVE?

I mean its all personal opinions, so to each their own. Its not something you can accurately quantify with broad generalized statements.

[PsychoPigeon]

Your idea of 'flopped' seems to be a personal perspective on a game, which I might add seems to be limited to a Western Perspective only.

My idea of flopped is low population, slow updates, also paying full amount for an unfinished product - which i might add should be F2P to start with so atl east it would get a steady flow of players to make the game enjoyable and not feel empty.

As to people flooding back into the game, well of course. If it costs nothing, then it is available to anyone who has a system and connection. Lots of these people couldn't have a chance to play even if it were a quality game because they lack the fiscal or payment methods. Another large group would be those who are just bored and want something to do to pass the time. All of this will equate to an influx of people, however, it doesn't mean the game is now successful. It just means there are more players in it. Using such logic we could say that open beta's are some of the most successful times for games.

Don't forget the people who feel the game isn't worth a monthly fee, which has happened to every monthly sub MMO in the last 6 years. Playing F2P games gives you a sense you are not obligated to play, whereas monthly subs kind of make you feel you should get your moneys worth.

True game success would be a measure of its profits and the quality of its community, not just how many people are playing in a F2P environment.

F2P environments generate more income unless you can wallow in the success Warcraft has had, which is far cry to many companies.

The one thing I know that does stand out for true F2P games, is contact information is not readily available, instead you are often relegated to tickets or knowledge bases.

What you just described is all P2P support. When I played Archlord(f2p) you'd go into chats and talk directly with the GM, so there is variation within F2P games.

Good is relative and doesn't equate directly to population. I would rather have, since we are relegated to individual servers anyways, a small total population and less servers with a quality game and community that just play a game that boasts "subscribers". I mean Battlestar Galactica, the free to play web game, says he has over 2 million subscribers, does this mean its a game which is six (6) times better than EVE?

Good meaning buying a product that is described rather than the usual unfinished game but hand over your monthly fee and we'll fix it in 6 months (then you never see those subs again and you end up going F2P like AoC). What does less servers have to do with the quality of the game? Wouldn't you want more players, especially when it's monthly subs, since you aren't getting a consistent flow of new players due to it not being free?

Someone above said monthly fee = maturity among gamers, that's another stupid myth that people parrot to sound smart. I play Aion currently and I've never seen such whiny immature players and what's more surprising is that they are all adults. You're going to get immaturity no matter if you pay monthly.

[Branwulf]

I always prefer the subscription model.

[Caduryn]

Why People allways think only games with millions subs are "success"?
Thats the stupiest thing i ever hear, a MMO can success even with 50.000 Subs.

And tbh, WoW and F2P games Communitys are the worst i ever meet.

And btw i played DAoC 7 Years long with fun, so for me DAoC was the best Game ever.

[Cavarath]

Why People allways think only games with millions subs are "success"?
Thats the stupiest thing i ever hear, a MMO can success even with 50.000 Subs.

And tbh, WoW and F2P games Communitys are the worst i ever meet.

And btw i played DAoC 7 Years long with fun, so for me DAoC was the best Game ever.

He also thinks that those F2P "subscribers" are actually playing that game. Yet the most F2P publishers are releasing the number of created accounts because all of them are active as no one has to pay for them.
Everything he writes is just blind F2P fanboyism while he ignores any argument against him.

Sometimes im doing similar things. But he is taking it into extremes.

[Synner]

i like them all. P2P, F2P and B2P. each have their pros and cons

[Cavarath]

Yeah.
P2P: Chance of being a long time title.
F2P: Fun for a few days, fun to delete afterwards.
B2P: Wannabe Multiplayer Singleplayer RPG? Why not. It doesnt cost a fee.(GW2 has first to prove that it deserves being a MMORPG)

[Symbane]

Competition plays a MUCH bigger role in open ended sandbox MMORPGs than it does in linear themepark MMOs. As such, a market store creates an unfair advantage for those with more discretional income than others. Also, if the economy is going to be player driven (via a bartering system), offering top grade items for RMT would cut the legs underneath in game crafters.

From a financial standpoint, a predictable monthly income w/ paid subscription allows a game company to plan easier than money generated from a market store. Also, it removes the temptation by the game company to tighten the screws on the players by offering better items on the market store if revenues need to be increased....potentially creating an even more unfair play experience.

If they want to sell some sparkely mounts in a market store, fine....but these things are typically a slippery slope, as vanity options alone wouldn't be enough revenue generating material to sustain business.