Originally posted by Corthala

Funcom knows that cash shop+subscrition works, They tried with Anarchy Online and it worked fine.  WHo didn't wanted to run around with a Hoverboard?????

 

Wasn't AO the first p2p to have a f2p model? and then a Cash shop? FC knows how player mind works, we will all buy our vanity items and they will profit..unfair? Yah! But players wil still buy vanity items.

 1. No, it didnt "work fine" with AO, they made very little money off it.

2. No, AO was not the first P2P to have a F2P model, or a cash shop.

3. No, FC does not know how the player mind works, AO was never a subscription success and AoC didnt make a profit for years and right after it did they had a massive player exodus because they were not listening to player complaints and even after going F2P they implimented such a massive fail shop that of the over 600,000 people that created fee accounts, the servers are still low population because only a fool would pay $75 for the content of the last xpac that was originally sold in stores for less than $40.

They are not called Failcom by players without a reason...nor are their two MMOs listed on every major gaming sites list of worst releases in MMO history without reason.

The expectation is that GW2 will keep releasing "mini-expansions" every few months which will force players to pay money - thus leading to a stealth subscription fee of sorts. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen.

Originally posted by DannyGlover

I budget 50 bucks a month for video games. Its one of my only hobbies and its dirt cheap next to other activities.

This. Every other activity tends to cost way more than playing a video game.

Originally posted by everland

Its funny how they ephasize that cash shop will have only cosmetics. In a game with no levels and no visible armor, cosmetics will play biggest role..

So how exactly this white T-shirt they are selling in CS will give me an advantage? Or that pair or trousers? Are you just trolling here or you actually do not know what are you taliking about?

I'll not going to pay another sub in my life. P2P means the game has to have "huge content" to keep players playing for months. "Huge content" can't be created by hand, so it's mostly trash mobs in different variations. Gameplay turns into chore, where you are artificially slowed down with boring useless tasks (mostly involving moping up trash mobs) between actually interesting parts. And I can't cope with it; I'm here to enjoy game, not to work as a janitor while paying a sub for the privilege. So thank you, but no more games with subs for me.

Originally posted by rdrakken

 

 1. No, it didnt "work fine" with AO, they made very little money off it.

2. No, AO was not the first P2P to have a F2P model, or a cash shop.

3. No, FC does not know how the player mind works, AO was never a subscription success and AoC didnt make a profit for years and right after it did they had a massive player exodus because they were not listening to player complaints and even after going F2P they implimented such a massive fail shop that of the over 600,000 people that created fee accounts, the servers are still low population because only a fool would pay $75 for the content of the last xpac that was originally sold in stores for less than $40.

They are not called Failcom by players without a reason...nor are their two MMOs listed on every major gaming sites list of worst releases in MMO history without reason.

 

It sounds like you have a personal vendetta against Funcom. I think it has skewed your point of view.

If things were as dismal as you suggest, Funcom would no longer be in business. Obviously they know how to do something right and have made some money along the way.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
How will gw2 pay mods / csrs. They are going to need more of them than with gw1 as that was a cooprpg really. Sure you have initial box sales, but 6 months down the line, 1 year? You May not pay a sub with gw2 but they will need to get money from players somehow.

They have a cash shop.

Originally posted by rdrakken

Originally posted by Corthala

Funcom knows that cash shop+subscrition works, They tried with Anarchy Online and it worked fine.  WHo didn't wanted to run around with a Hoverboard?????

 

Wasn't AO the first p2p to have a f2p model? and then a Cash shop? FC knows how player mind works, we will all buy our vanity items and they will profit..unfair? Yah! But players wil still buy vanity items.

 1. No, it didnt "work fine" with AO, they made very little money off it.

2. No, AO was not the first P2P to have a F2P model, or a cash shop.

3. No, FC does not know how the player mind works, AO was never a subscription success and AoC didnt make a profit for years and right after it did they had a massive player exodus because they were not listening to player complaints and even after going F2P they implimented such a massive fail shop that of the over 600,000 people that created fee accounts, the servers are still low population because only a fool would pay $75 for the content of the last xpac that was originally sold in stores for less than $40.

They are not called Failcom by players without a reason...nor are their two MMOs listed on every major gaming sites list of worst releases in MMO history without reason.

 

its failcom enough said ive seen them kill off AO with cash shop and high subs and  new engine promiss for the last  6 years  . ill wait till this game is f2p it will will lose it appeal very soon

and if it dose do well then hats off to failcom 1 out of 3 not bad might even pick it up

Always hated F2P. I'd rather pay sub than face disbalance in PVP (which is the main reason for mmo for me) . And since there's not much reason to buy items for PVE game - PVP is the main thing affected. 

It is possible to make F2P work without hurting balance though, like faster leveling, but then it won't be as appealing to "donators". In the end those without skill want to "own"

Originally posted by AlexanderTD

Always hated F2P. I'd rather pay sub than face disbalance in PVP (which is the main reason for mmo for me) . And since there's not much reason to buy items for PVE game - PVP is the main thing affected. 

It is possible to make F2P work without hurting balance though, like faster leveling, but then it won't be as appealing to "donators". In the end those without skill want to "own"

I'm sorry, I just don't see the correlation. What does F2P have to do w/ balanced PvP exactly? There are pleanty of F2P games that have decent balance, just as there are pleanty of sub games that have horrible balance. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

Ultimately for me, I'm not going to play TSW simply because it has a subscription.  Yes, if it was just a cash shop and box sale I'd play it, but i'm not paying  a monthly fee for it, or anything else any longer for that matter.  10 years ago a fee made sense, I was told it was needed for content development and maint.  I no longer believe that to be true.  I think that a sub is there strictly to make extra money because they can.  I've decided I won't be contributing towards that.  I'll play GW2 and happily choose wether or not I want to spend in the cash shop or buy DLC as it comes out, but I won't be forced to pay 15 bucks for stuff I may or may not want anyhow.

Take SWTOR for example.  I played from day 1 so 6 months roughly.  Only 90 bucks total, not a lot of money.  I played the game hardcore for the first 2 months.  Lightened up the next 2 and all but forgot the game entirely the last 2.  In that duration, for my 90 dollars I got a content update that included 1 raid, 1 dungeon and 1 PvP map.  I also got a whole system of Alternative advancement I simply didn't want.  I didn't want the PVP map for that matter either.  Ultimately I paid them 90 dollars for a raid and a dungeon.  The raid I only finished once...at least the dungeon was fun for a time?

For those that say 15 a month is no big deal, break it down to what you actually get for that month and see if you change your mind.  They don't need your sub for content and they don't need it to maintain anything.  Ultimately any real content or addition of fun stuff to the game is likely to come your way via expansion anyhow, which you'll be paying for...as well as your sub.

SO, yeah, GW2 for me.  I can buy the game, play it without paying in each month and should I so CHOOSE to do so, I can use the cash shop and buy some sparkly dyes or a mini pet or something, and when they have DLC which I'm pretty sure it's how they intend to make money in the long run..I can CHOOSE to purchase that if it interests me as well.  

This way, I suspect should I spend 90 bucks I'll have been okay with it as I chose what I wanted for that 90.  Sure beats what I paid 90 bucks for in swtor..

Originally posted by Greyhooff

The expectation is that GW2 will keep releasing "mini-expansions" every few months which will force players to pay money - thus leading to a stealth subscription fee of sorts. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen.

If this happens...

I like how people complain a game was "killed" ::NEWSFLASH:: it still running . a game isnt killed until the servers come down and its gone for good. also p2p models are a little better then f2p only because the community and community is whats makes the game.in f2p everyone can come in and its always the little crybaby trolls that ruin it for everyone, in a f2p model sure youll get crybabies but they will be gone once the month is up. But just to complain about a cosmetic cash shop thats just dumb you people make it seem like they are holding a gun to your head and force you to buy from it. 

Originally posted by Leethe

Originally posted by AwDiddums

Originally posted by Piiritus

Playing MMOs is one of the chepiest hobbies I can think of so I cannot honestly understand your question. If the only possibility to spend a few euros for sub is to keep children starving then he or she should stop playing completely. Honestly I just cannot understand problem with monthly sub if I want to play the game. Take GW2 that is the most insanely hyped MMO I can remember but even if someone buys it for me I won't start playing it because I just don't like it.  

I strongly agree, going out down to the pub with a few mates on a Friday night will cost in the region of £100, with taxi's drinks food and club entrance fee's.

Paying a monthly sub plus some cash shop isn't at all a hardship, unless your living in a shoebox and are as tight as a ducks arse.

 

 

Dear god man you are going to the wrong pubs. Or you live in London.

Also, and completely offtopic, ducks have no sphincter muscle. They couldn't make their arse tight even if they wanted to. :p

On topic: I refuse to support a company that charges users a box price, sub and include a cash shop. It just doesn't sit well with me and is not something I will ever be ok with. Plenty of other games that don't triple dip their customers so I see no loss in not supporting Funcom in this game.

Originally posted by cinos

On topic: I refuse to support a company that charges users a box price, sub and include a cash shop.

Unless they make a clearly superior game.

Then they can charge all that the market will bear. 

But we haven't seen one of those, in a lot of years now.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by cinos

On topic: I refuse to support a company that charges users a box price, sub and include a cash shop.

Unless they make a clearly superior game.

Then they can charge all that the market will bear. 

But we haven't seen one of those, in a lot of years now.

For most people that's propably true.

I personally still would not play it. 

Well unless they would offer separate no CS servers even for bit higher sub.

It's not only about amount of money it is also about what CS (and RMT for that matter) do to gameplay, game mechanics, few other things and most of all what CS do to immersion. For me it totally ruin it.

Considering how many people I saw rush to the defense of another upcoming title's cash shop with claims like, "Who cares if they offer a cash shop?  I work and make a comfortable living, so I can afford to spend my real cash if I want to", I find it interesting that so many of those people come to the TSW threads to bash their sub+cash shop system, then preach the virtues of that other title's no-subscription model, knowing full well that the cash shop PLUS regular expansions THAT YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR will be the way the other company sustains itself.

Originally posted by jdnyc

Many don't have a lot of extra money to spend right now.  Could this be a motivating factor to why so many people want to play TSW, but don't want to pay the sub?  They hope it goes F2P, so they'll get a chance to play themselves?  Or is this really about GW2?

It's not about any of those things.  People want to play games and don't want to pay for them - period. 

People that refuse to play a game they like because it has a cash shop which they don't use or need to use are morons. 

People that think that a game somehow becomes "better" because of a different payment model are also morons.  The game is excatly the same regardless of how much you pay for it.  

People just look for reasons to complain or reasons to get shit free.   If you like a game, buy it and play it.  If you don't like the game, you're not going to like it more because you're not paying for it.  The game stays the same. 

The only potential difference is if you want to keep multiple games and you have a limited budget.  If you can only afford to pay 1 sub but like a whole bunch of games, then you obvoiusly would want more of those games to be F2P.  But that is predicated on actually admitting that you LIKE those games, because like i said - if you don't LIKE it, then you shoudln't want to play it, even if it's free.

It seems like every second post on just about any new MMO forums is about "oh i'd like it if it were free", when the reality is that it would be the exact same frackin' game even if it was free, so if you don't like it now, you wouldn't like then.   Man up and move on.

@up

People who think that gameplay is not altered if game have CS or is F2P are morons.

See what I did?