Originally posted by MMOExposed

A Major Concern about the B2P model: Lack of Power in Consumer Voice or even care about consumer's opinion post launch.
 

Your point is moot.

Because with some other sub-based mmos, they are still ignoring customer's opinion regardless. For example, swtor - they have improved none of that things that players asked (such as World pvp) and keep introducing useless changes.

While on the other hand, some f2p games have actually done a lot and listened to (such as Stronghold Kingdoms and the changes to the rank which is required to join factions and alliances).

And what is concerning is somehow Anet/GW2 is kept on being used as a point of reference (which from what I see on Facebook and Reddit they seem to be quite attentive and responsive to customers, so there might be some falsehood in your claim), which indicates this is quite likely another veiled attempt on bashing GW2 instead of just talking about the issues of b2p/f2p.

Originally posted by Burntvet

Well, one player quits it might be  the "customer's problem".

When 1000s start quiting, that very much becomes the company's problem.

And yeah, any subscription based company pays attention to that.

EA/Bioware didn't.

SOE didn't.

EA/Mythic didn't.

Funcom didn't.

These are my supporting examples. Where are yours?

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by Burntvet

Well, one player quits it might be  the "customer's problem".

When 1000s start quiting, that very much becomes the company's problem.

And yeah, any subscription based company pays attention to that.

EA/Bioware didn't.

SOE didn't.

EA/Mythic didn't.

Funcom didn't.

These are my supporting examples. Where are yours?

 

Pay attention and do something useful about it are two entirely different things.

EA responded (poorly) by hitting the marketing even harder. And then fired 400 people from TOR. Didn't help.

SOE, well, SOE flails around... and used this as the excuse to change SWG twice. Flailed with DCUO.  Didn't help.

Funcom responded by firing half the company.

If there is one thing these companies pay attention to it is falling sub numbers. That they fail to fix the reason for those falling sub numbers is something different entirely.

Just like a P2P MMO, GW2 still relies on continuous patronage in order to be viable. Less people playing means less revenue from cash shop. Afterall, CS replaces subscription in a game like this. There will also be less people who will buy expansions. It's not true at all that we as customers don't have as much voice with this model.

The difference here is that ANet has somewhat of an unmoving belief with their design. While you're welcome to give out suggestions, you shouldn't be raging on if ANet didn't do as you say. You just paid to play the game, not to control its development. Will they also behave like this if GW2 was a P2P game? I personally think so.

Originally posted by Burntvet

Pay attention and do something useful about it are two entirely different things.

EA responded (poorly) by hitting the marketing even harder. And then fired 400 people from TOR. Didn't help.

SOE, well, SOE flails around... and used this as the excuse to change SWG twice. Flailed with DCUO.  Didn't help.

Funcom responded by firing half the company.

 

If there is one thing these companies pay attention to it is falling sub numbers. That they fail to fix the reason for those falling sub numbers is something different entirely.

 

EA didn't respond poorly. The didn't respond and did the opposite.

Case 1: Swtor

What people want: world pvp, make illum better

What EA did: shutdown illum

SOE again go against what people want.

Case 2: SWG

What people want: no changes, pre-NGE was fine

What SOE (or LucasArts) did: implement NGE, just right after people bought the expansion

Funcom also did the same.

Case 3: Age of Conan (back when it first came out)

What people want: balance out crafted weapons power, class balance

What Funcom did: Just make crafting useless altogether.

On the other hand, you have B2P/F2P game who done right:

Case 1: Diablo 3, Starcraft 1 & 2

What's good: Constant patches to fix issues. Did listen to playerbase for balance issues 

Case 2: Team Fortress 2

What's good: Again, constant rebalance and patches and listen to the playerbase

So as you can see, it has nothing to do with model, but rather the company's attitudes.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

With Guild Wars 2, being the recent huge example of this model in action, I dont like the limited voice of the consumers in this model.

 

GW2 isn't a B2P business model.    B2P games don't have cash shops.

Originally posted by thinktank001

Originally posted by MMOExposed

With Guild Wars 2, being the recent huge example of this model in action, I dont like the limited voice of the consumers in this model.

 

 

GW2 isn't a B2P business model.    B2P games don't have cash shops.

I went to the store, and paid 60 dollars for it. I installed it on my computer and could play it instantly. That sounds like B2P to me.

Originally posted by Enigmatus

Originally posted by thinktank001

Originally posted by MMOExposed

With Guild Wars 2, being the recent huge example of this model in action, I dont like the limited voice of the consumers in this model.

 

 

GW2 isn't a B2P business model.    B2P games don't have cash shops.

I went to the store, and paid 60 dollars for it. I installed it on my computer and could play it instantly. That sounds like B2P to me.

That's not their model though.  They have not planned to continue developing the game/supporting it strictly off of box sales.  That is dependent upon the microtransactions.  If enough people do not spend money in the cash shop...they'll go down.  That's their business model.  They're avoiding the sub model and the P2P-F2P model...but they still need money.

/cough

edit: I edited out the potentially inflammatory bit - since it was uncalled for in regard to the post I was replying to...

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by Enigmatus

Originally posted by thinktank001

GW2 isn't a B2P business model.    B2P games don't have cash shops.

I went to the store, and paid 60 dollars for it. I installed it on my computer and could play it instantly. That sounds like B2P to me.

That's not their model though.  They have not planned to continue developing the game/supporting it strictly off of box sales.  That is dependent upon the microtransactions.  If enough people do not spend money in the cash shop...they'll go down.  That's their business model. 

/cough

Ah...

So it's a buymium?

Originally posted by MMOExposed

A Major Concern about the B2P model: Lack of Power in Consumer Voice or even care about consumer's opinion post launch.

I was really looking forward to the future of the B2P model for saving me money from subs,

but major concerns still stand out.
With Guild Wars 2, being the recent huge example of this model in action, I dont like the limited voice of the consumers in this model.

Recently on the official forum a poster voicing their opinion on the poor design decisions that Anet has done to the game over the last few days, and their rude comments, this poster was infracted.

well in most cases in the genre, people would simply say, unsub and dont support the title,

but B2P games dont have a sub. They already have your money. Your voice is meaningless as a consumer because of this.

 

Noce trolling mate. Just because they didn't care about one whining kid you think they are doing nothing ? I see plenty of dev team in forum. I see people them commenting issues from forum and stuff.

There is big statment about this kid problem and someone posted it there. Also there was REASON for that change.

What this kid was doing - he was farming money doing over and over same dungeon or something. When his milkcow was killed he started whining that he can't farm money anymore. So he was farming money or enjoying the game ? If he was farming then good things happened with this patch. If he was enjoying dungeon then why he is whining ? He can still enjoy it.

Kid these days. Never see bigger picture.

Originally posted by Enigmatus

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by Enigmatus

Originally posted by thinktank001

GW2 isn't a B2P business model.    B2P games don't have cash shops.

I went to the store, and paid 60 dollars for it. I installed it on my computer and could play it instantly. That sounds like B2P to me.

That's not their model though.  They have not planned to continue developing the game/supporting it strictly off of box sales.  That is dependent upon the microtransactions.  If enough people do not spend money in the cash shop...they'll go down.  That's their business model. 

/cough

Ah...

So it's a buymium?

It's the GW2 model.  :)

I'm not sure I'd really apply any of the current labels to them.  IMO, it's not really all that bad of a model.  I'm not sure how it will work out - hopefully there are enough players that want to support the game, that they actually do support the game.

It's along the lines of a F2P model with some insurance built in, in the form of buying the box.  So they get that upfront amount...upfront - as opposed to having no money upfront.  That's perhaps enough to stave off that need for it to be a P2W/F2P-P2P game.  So you have to give them credit for that.  It's also a case that folks that have spent $50-60+ upfront, might be willing to spend a little more to make sure the game keeps going.  They might not be willing to part with $15 a month, but if they throw $2-5 a month at them - that's better than nothing.

I'd use the following analogy:

It's a club with a cover charge but no drink minimum.

As opposed to...

A club with no cover charge but with a drink minimum.

A club where you buy a membership and pay dues, even if you do not go to the club.

A club where there's no cover charge, but they have a monthly plan where you can get a couple of well drinks free each month but you have to pay for your call drinks.

A troll thread is a troll thread. You can see it in the first post.

In summary 'consumers don't have a voice, because Anet fixed a system that people were enjoying exploiting'. I've been running some new players through the dungeons, and one thing is abundantly clear. The people giving such reactions to the patch are not looking for a challenge, at all. They don't want a skill based game, nor one that offers any degree of difficulty. Basically exactly what GW2 promised to deliver.

Quite a number of the dungeons were way too easy, and Anet fixed it. Get over it. People are still farming dungeons, they just don't have piles of exp and money handed to them on a silver platter, they actually have to work for it a bit now.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

A Major Concern about the B2P model: Lack of Power in Consumer Voice or even care about consumer's opinion post launch.

you could make the same argument for any product (game or not) without a recurring fee

and you would be wrong

having a sub or a recurring fee for a service -- does not mean you have MORE consumer voice

dont like a product?  stop using the product

I dont agree at all, they want you to keep playing the game and keep buying expansions.

As for subs my voice never got heard so i dont see how its any different there, they want you to keep subing and buy expansions.

Devs have a vision of how theyr game is and very very few move past that post launch sub or no sub, only game i have seen do it drasticly is wow. Thats one title that have changed alot over the years. Most stay the same, they just get bigger.

Swtor is a prime example, poeple voiced theyr opinion quite clearly and it was not to few that did so with theyr sub. Cant say much have changed over there except the f2p part.

There is far more eveidence that they cant change game drasticly after release then the oposite. What you get is 99% of the time what you will keep getting from games. Sub or no sub.

Meh.

As if it would be better with P2P ...

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by MMOExposed

---

Originally posted by zakiyawow The ANet forum post is just another whiner, nothing much. ANet manage GW1 just fine and I am sure they will treat GW2 the same if not better.

---

but GW2 isnt GW1.   Blizzard did well on Warcraft 1-3 doesnt mean they did well with Cata for WoW,,,, Anet made lots of bad design decisions lately which contradicts their words.

---

They don't? Didn't they sell something like 3.4M copies in the first week and was the fastest selling PC game at that time?

You may not like it ... but it is certainly NOT a commercial failure. Heck, it even reviews well (90% on metacritics).

 

---

The loss of so many people FAR outweighs how many boxes it sold in the first month.

People quitting GW2 means they wont buy Gems or expansions but not everyone buys tons of Gems and expansions are pretty far away at this point. So, when someone leaves GW2 theres only a minor impact revenue wise. LOTS of people leaving will be felt but the impact wont be immediate as it was on an MMO like SW:TOR.

So, the loss to ArenaNet and their parent company NCSoft of people quitting GW2 is really only felt in the long term.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

A Major Concern about the B2P model: Lack of Power in Consumer Voice or even care about consumer's opinion post launch.

I was really looking forward to the future of the B2P model for saving me money from subs,

but major concerns still stand out.
With Guild Wars 2, being the recent huge example of this model in action, I dont like the limited voice of the consumers in this model.

Recently on the official forum a poster voicing their opinion on the poor design decisions that Anet has done to the game over the last few days, and their rude comments, this poster was infracted.

well in most cases in the genre, people would simply say, unsub and dont support the title,

but B2P games dont have a sub. They already have your money. Your voice is meaningless as a consumer because of this.

 

Faaaantastic. This is good news Consumer voice is fine. Consumer gamers are not, they are dumb, hatefull, agenda driven and usually wrong. I am glad that Anet is in a position where they aren't tied to consumers in that way. Don't like it unsub about it.