Originally posted by Rohn

Originally posted by colddog04

If it's really good and doesn't have a cash shop.

 That's just it.  The B2P model is essentially the same as the F2P model, except with B2P you have to pay for the client as well.

Both will have cash shops to sustain them.

 A pay to win cash shop like in most F2P games is something that can be avoided due to the box price. There is a really substantial difference between a real F2P cash shop and a B2P one. The argument that both have cash shops is like saying both are MMO's. P2P games can have cash shops as well.

If B2P is essantially F2P and essentially P2P with cash shop because of said cash shop, then what in blazes is your point?

I judge a game by the game itself not its payment method. So yes I will continue to sub if the game is worth it.

Originally posted by laokoko

Is GW1 not successful? I don't see many game company follow the B2P footstep.

That being said, every player likes B2P because its the cheapest. 

Actually, F2P is the cheapest.

I have no problem with any of the payment options. I enjoyed WoW (P2P), I enjoyed RoM (F2P) and I will enjoy GW2 (B2P). Since I don't care much about cash shops, I got no qualm with any of it as long as the game is well done and worth my time (not necessarily my money.)

Well, with a couple of hundred votes in on this highly unscientific survey it appears about 50% of the folks will still continue to purchase sub based games as long as they are good, and even of the 45% against it a large portion of them might still buy a sub title if it knocks their socks off.

I know we can't draw any market conclusions except to say that of those folks who took the poll on this site, most are willing to continue to pay a sub should the title warrant it. 

I almost wonder if an unexpected result of GW2's B2P / cash shop experiement (assuming it is successful) will be that more titles that might have been totally F2P will be encourage to try the B2P/cash shop route to get some sort of up front money instead.  Will be interesting to see.

Originally posted by toddze

Originally posted by EvilestTwin

Originally posted by toddze

Originally posted by Xzen

Originally posted by toddze

[mod edit]

Strange. I don't live in a basement or flip burgers. I also probably make more money than you do. Just because YOU are willing to pay $15 USD a month for games that I consider to be mediocre as far as mmorpgs are concerned does not make you better than me or anyone else.

"probably" make more money than me. If you do, good for you im happy for you. If you do and your such a big penny pincher you should be well retired by now then living the golden life.

Again 15$ is nothing for a month of entertainment.  considering the alternative, crying about 15$ a month wheater its a good great or piss poor game is absurd. Its by far the best value of entertainment, if a person likes what mmo's is offering.

The thing is, why pay $15 when you can pay $0 and get the same thing?  That's what it comes down to.  If 2 games are offering almost the exact same thing, but one is B2P while the other is P2P, why would anyone choose to play the P2P game?   Hence the P2P game would need to offer extra value than the B2P game does not have in order to be worth it.   

It's like paying $4 vs $20 for the same burger.   That $20 burger is totally not worth buying unless it's using something like Kobe beef.  

Its all about what people want to play. For example back in december it was TOR everyone wanted to play tor. You couldnt play TOR without paying, so thats why people pay. Youll see it again on the next big p2p title too.

Now why people throw common sense away and get suckered in by devs would be a much more interesting topic. Just like this evryone has thrown common sense out with GWII being b2p. No one knows how this game is going to turn out, we dont know how fast new content and updates will be rolled out. We have not seen the side effects of the b2p model yet, but everyone wants to crown it as some pinacle acheivment. Like all MMO's GWII is going to have its honeymoon period. The real test of MMO's starts the 3rd month, after release. Then this topic of b2p vs p2p vs f2p will have a lot more points for discussion.

You may want to read the OP again, the poll is based on a IF scenario that may or may not happen and the answers should be within that frame, I voted not likely but if GW2 never or barely has any content updates in reality then it would be very likely.

I still prefer subscription over cash shop if the game is worth the sub.

I would gladly pay 30 usd/month for a game that is awesome...unfortunately I do not see any games like that being released in the following year or two

Originally posted by travamars

F2P games have been completely free and been successfull, so why would someone pay for a box and still have to deal with a cash shop dependant game?

I'd much rather pay $15 a month a have it all instead of constantly get my cc out.

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.

Originally posted by Terrorizor

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.

Originally posted by SpottyGekko

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.

Originally posted by Psychow

Originally posted by Larsa

Originally posted by Psychow

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.

Originally posted by Vesavius

 

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.

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 ?

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. 

Originally posted by Kyleran

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.