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.

 

It is preposterous that a B2P game generates profit like a sub based game (quality sub based game). Imagine how many boxes they would have to sell to be on par with WoW's annual profit.

I think GW wont be able to compete even with the recent single player hack n' slash game in terms of revenues/profit.

People who claim that it will change the industry are wrong, in my opinion.

There are still many people who would be gladly paying subscription for a game that is worth it. My assumption is that Titan will be sub based and will prove this correct. Of course I may be wrong

Originally posted by coretex666

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.

 

It is preposterous that a B2P game generates profit like a sub based game (quality sub based game). Imagine how many boxes they would have to sell to be on par with WoW's annual profit.

I think GW wont be able to compete even with the recent single player hack n' slash game in terms of revenues/profit.

People who claim that it will change the industry are wrong, in my opinion.

There are still many people who would be gladly paying subscription for a game that is worth it. My assumption is that Titan will be sub based and will prove this correct. Of course I may be wrong

I really wish people would stop trying to compare every game to WoW in terms of profit.  In that aspect, WoW is an aberration.  No other game even comes remotely close to the numbers that WoW has.  It would be much more appropriate to compare the financial success of GW2 to the average MMO P2P game.

I think GW2 could possibly change the industry if it is just as profitable, or more so, than the average P2P MMO.  I think that while most devs would love to have WoW's numbers, they also know that it's pretty much unobtainable anymore.    But a B2P MMO being more profitable than the average P2P MMO will certainly turn a lot of heads.  And I personally thing GW2 can do that.

the usual link to the Jeff strain article on How to Create a Successful MMO

http://www.guildwars.com/events/tradeshows/gc2007/gcspeech.php

Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true – you know it, and they know it. Gamers may buy the argument that your MMO requires a subscription fee, if you can tell them what they are getting for their money. This is the legacy of games like Guild Wars, Maple Story, and Silkroad Online, all of which introduced new business models into the MMO genre and were quite successful. The subscription model is still perfectly viable, but the pain threshold is very low now. It's no secret that gamers don't want to pay a subscription fee. If you can convince them that your game offers enough value to justify it, more power to you! But be prepared to defend your decision, often and loudly, and back it up over the lifetime of your game.

The only differense is that in 2007 people that had played GW1 learned that. Now people playing GW2 will learn it

Originally posted by jondifool

the usual link to the Jeff strain article on How to Create a Successful MMO

http://www.guildwars.com/events/tradeshows/gc2007/gcspeech.php

Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true – you know it, and they know it. Gamers may buy the argument that your MMO requires a subscription fee, if you can tell them what they are getting for their money. This is the legacy of games like Guild Wars, Maple Story, and Silkroad Online, all of which introduced new business models into the MMO genre and were quite successful. The subscription model is still perfectly viable, but the pain threshold is very low now. It's no secret that gamers don't want to pay a subscription fee. If you can convince them that your game offers enough value to justify it, more power to you! But be prepared to defend your decision, often and loudly, and back it up over the lifetime of your game.

The only differense is that in 2007 people that had played GW1 learned that. Now people playing GW2 will learn it

Then, please, tell me why a cash shop is any more needed? Both subs and a cash shop serve exactly the same purpose, to generate ongoing profit.

Both revenue models exist to make further profit off a game, if one is valid then so is the other.

If he is telling us that a game that charges us for the client really needs no further financial support to be profitable past that intitial sale, then that makes cash shops look EXTRA greedy and exploitative. All they will have done, if we accept that, is swap one pure profit model for a more lucrative pure profit model... and what does all that extra profit come at the expense come from?

The player ofc.

We won't even talk about the profound effect cash shops inevitably have on fundamental game design.

We won't even talk about how incredibly successful MMOs became under the sub model.

We won't talk about how Trion are proving how you can deliver a solid fun game, with great customer support, and robust ongoing live development under the sub model.

I am sick of all these industry mouth pieces telling us 'what the players want'. It has created a false reality as it has been picked up on and parroted dutifully by the gaming sites and others as it has been shilled across the forums by the industry.

Every poll I see asking this question and the vast majority are open to paying a sub IF THE GAME IS GOOD. This idea that the 'market hates subs' is BS.

Play to Achieve > Pay to Achieve.

Originally posted by coretex666

People who claim that it will change the industry are wrong, in my opinion.

Oh, it might 'change the industry' a bit...

It might show devs that were about to give their client away and just use a cash shop to make profit that they can now sell it.

At least until folks finally wake up to the fact that B2P is just F2P with a client cost.

I honestly do not get the excitement for it.

     Ok, lets look at the numbers and the math then. Im going to go ahead and look up revenue from 2007 since that was the year that GW1 rec'd its final expansion and was still being heavily supported. According to ncsofts financial reports GW1 made about $20 million dollars in 2007 which was the year that the Eye of the North expansion came out. It also makes note that GW1 sales were pulling in more money than City of Heroes/Villains despite CoX being a subscription game at the time. Comparing it in terms of pure revenue to a p2p game with a box expansion also being sold on the same year would require a p2p game to have over 80k yearly subscribers who paid for a $50 box expansion to match the revenue made by GW1 that year. If we compare to a p2p game without a box expansion released that year than the number of p2p yearly subscribers that an mmo would have to maintain to match GW1's revenue would be over 110k yearly subscribers.

     ( information on revenue source:http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx 

      Note that figures will require currency conversion to US$) http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnihttp://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx  

If we break down the money GW1 made it looks like the same revenue that would have been generated by only 500,000 units of eye of the north sold in all of 2007 (eye of the north was a $40 purchase at the time of release). So esentially, in order to compare to p2p mmo's it would have to have roughly 4-5 times the number of players to expect to see similar profit to a $15 a month mmo.

Also ) .   als          Having established this metric of comparison we can now look at how GW1 fared in terms of profitability compared to other p2p mmo's. Going by the info from http://mmodata.blogspot.com/   ,we can now compare it to other games and see where GW1 stood. Now of course GW1 in 2007 is not GW2 at launch. Obviously there is far more anticipation for Arenanet's new product then there was for an expansion of thier older property but i do think this gives us an indication of how B2P profit compares to P2P profit. The comparisons do not always favor either side of the argument. There are in fact many p2p mmo's that didnt make as much  income as GW1. And of course GW1 didnt make as much money as some of the heavier hitters.

Originally posted by evolver1972

Originally posted by coretex666

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.

 

It is preposterous that a B2P game generates profit like a sub based game (quality sub based game). Imagine how many boxes they would have to sell to be on par with WoW's annual profit.

I think GW wont be able to compete even with the recent single player hack n' slash game in terms of revenues/profit.

People who claim that it will change the industry are wrong, in my opinion.

There are still many people who would be gladly paying subscription for a game that is worth it. My assumption is that Titan will be sub based and will prove this correct. Of course I may be wrong

I really wish people would stop trying to compare every game to WoW in terms of profit.  In that aspect, WoW is an aberration.  No other game even comes remotely close to the numbers that WoW has.  It would be much more appropriate to compare the financial success of GW2 to the average MMO P2P game.

 

I think GW2 could possibly change the industry if it is just as profitable, or more so, than the average P2P MMO.  I think that while most devs would love to have WoW's numbers, they also know that it's pretty much unobtainable anymore.    But a B2P MMO being more profitable than the average P2P MMO will certainly turn a lot of heads.  And I personally thing GW2 can do that.

What is an average P2P game in your eyes. SWTOR that is slowly dying, struggling Rift, TSW that is going to be F2P in several months, Tera? They are not average, imo. They are really poor games. So ok, maybe it may help the developers of rather poor MMOs to wake up and change their payment options which they would be forced to in several months after release anyway.

Producers of quality MMOs will not care, in my opinion. I would go all-in that next Blizz MMO will be subscription based.

If GW is to be compared with "average/poor" games then it probably aims at being slightly above average at best. Why not to compare this overhyped superambitious themepark with a truly successful MMO, like WoW. Because it does not stand a chance in making profit even close to it?So why would it change the industry then?Maybe producers should once again focus on making a quality game instead of trying to figure out how to milk as much cash as possible from their crappy game.

Just look at the results of the poll. People still consider subscription appropriate if it is justified with quality of the game.

If GW producers thought / calculated / estimated whatever that GW can offer sufficient quality to keep people subbed, then they would have subscription. They go for a B2P model, like Diablo which is supposed to be played for rather short time comparing to MMO. I think the aim of GW is the same...sell the boxes, get people play WvWvW for a month or two and thats it. A game like WoW can hold playerbase for 8 years+, for such game a subscription is an obvious way to go. Any MMO that aims at actually holding the playerbase for years will not go for B2P model.

Originally posted by coretex666

 

There are still many people who would be gladly paying subscription for a game that is worth it. My assumption is that Titan will be sub based and will prove this correct. Of course I may be wrong

somewhere i read that they(blizzard) are thinking the free2play model, not even the b2p ...

i have a strong belief that the subscription models are not so efective in a world who lives in an economical crisis

Not unless they bring something very interestingly new to the table. No way on earth will I pay if I don't have to.

Originally posted by loulaki

Originally posted by coretex666

 

There are still many people who would be gladly paying subscription for a game that is worth it. My assumption is that Titan will be sub based and will prove this correct. Of course I may be wrong

somewhere i read that they(blizzard) are thinking the free2play model, not even the b2p ...

i have a strong belief that the subscription models are not so efective in a world who lives in an economical crisis

I'm betting on a combination of all 3 payment models, Box price, option to pay subs or cash shop purchase content packs and perhaps cosmetic items.

Maximizing your revenue models is going to be the watchword of the future.

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by loulaki

Originally posted by coretex666

 

There are still many people who would be gladly paying subscription for a game that is worth it. My assumption is that Titan will be sub based and will prove this correct. Of course I may be wrong

somewhere i read that they(blizzard) are thinking the free2play model, not even the b2p ...

i have a strong belief that the subscription models are not so efective in a world who lives in an economical crisis

I'm betting on a combination of all 3 payment models, Box price, option to pay subs or cash shop purchase content packs and perhaps cosmetic items.

Maximizing your revenue models is going to be the watchword of the future.

 

I could see a P2P/B2P set up working out. P2P with 15/month sub fee gets you the expansions, and some cosmetic cash shop points every month OR Buy 2 play. You purchase the game, expansions, and cash shop items if you want.

Originally posted by coretex666

Originally posted by evolver1972

Originally posted by coretex666

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.

 

It is preposterous that a B2P game generates profit like a sub based game (quality sub based game). Imagine how many boxes they would have to sell to be on par with WoW's annual profit.

I think GW wont be able to compete even with the recent single player hack n' slash game in terms of revenues/profit.

People who claim that it will change the industry are wrong, in my opinion.

There are still many people who would be gladly paying subscription for a game that is worth it. My assumption is that Titan will be sub based and will prove this correct. Of course I may be wrong

I really wish people would stop trying to compare every game to WoW in terms of profit.  In that aspect, WoW is an aberration.  No other game even comes remotely close to the numbers that WoW has.  It would be much more appropriate to compare the financial success of GW2 to the average MMO P2P game.

 

I think GW2 could possibly change the industry if it is just as profitable, or more so, than the average P2P MMO.  I think that while most devs would love to have WoW's numbers, they also know that it's pretty much unobtainable anymore.    But a B2P MMO being more profitable than the average P2P MMO will certainly turn a lot of heads.  And I personally thing GW2 can do that.

What is an average P2P game in your eyes. SWTOR that is slowly dying, struggling Rift, TSW that is going to be F2P in several months, Tera? They are not average, imo. They are really poor games. So ok, maybe it may help the developers of rather poor MMOs to wake up and change their payment options which they would be forced to in several months after release anyway.

Producers of quality MMOs will not care, in my opinion. I would go all-in that next Blizz MMO will be subscription based.

If GW is to be compared with "average/poor" games then it probably aims at being slightly above average at best. Why not to compare this overhyped superambitious themepark with a truly successful MMO, like WoW. Because it does not stand a chance in making profit even close to it?So why would it change the industry then?Maybe producers should once again focus on making a quality game instead of trying to figure out how to milk as much cash as possible from their crappy game.

Just look at the results of the poll. People still consider subscription appropriate if it is justified with quality of the game.

If GW producers thought / calculated / estimated whatever that GW can offer sufficient quality to keep people subbed, then they would have subscription. They go for a B2P model, like Diablo which is supposed to be played for rather short time comparing to MMO. I think the aim of GW is the same...sell the boxes, get people play WvWvW for a month or two and thats it. A game like WoW can hold playerbase for 8 years+, for such game a subscription is an obvious way to go. Any MMO that aims at actually holding the playerbase for years will not go for B2P model.

 

I thought I was pretty clear in my first paragraph about what I was calling an average MMO.

I wasn't talking about quality of the game.  That's irrelevant to my point.  I was talking about average income or profit of the game.  In that light, it's not WoW anyone needs to prove themselves against.  Games like EQ, LotRO, Rift, and yes, even SWTOR, at the height of their paid subscriptions is what most every game has to prove themselves against.

I know for a fact that Anet are not looking to make an average quality MMO.  They have stated their aim is to make the best MMO ever.

Also, considering that GW1 has retained a fairly solid player base for 7 years now, I highly doubt Anet is only striving to sell the boxes and get people to play for a couple months.  But that's just me.

Originally posted by Xzen

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by loulaki

Originally posted by coretex666

 

There are still many people who would be gladly paying subscription for a game that is worth it. My assumption is that Titan will be sub based and will prove this correct. Of course I may be wrong

somewhere i read that they(blizzard) are thinking the free2play model, not even the b2p ...

i have a strong belief that the subscription models are not so efective in a world who lives in an economical crisis

I'm betting on a combination of all 3 payment models, Box price, option to pay subs or cash shop purchase content packs and perhaps cosmetic items.

Maximizing your revenue models is going to be the watchword of the future.

 

I could see a P2P/B2P set up working out. P2P with 15/month sub fee gets you the expansions, and some cosmetic cash shop points every month OR Buy 2 play. You purchase the game, expansions, and cash shop items if you want.

i dont know where you live or your wealth status, but around Europe and USA i know that the majority of househoulds are not able to afford monthly fees of 15$ just for online gaming, its calling luxury, and on the other hand game developers want to sell not to make a luxury product were none buys it .

" Not a chance in hell, B2P forever baby!"

I'm curious as to why you chose that wording for that option?  The rest of the options were in neutral language; this one is worded in a comic (or in my opinion, absurd) manner.

I prefer the buy to play option both because it suits my financial situation (not much spare money) and my tendancy to play sporadically, when the mood takes me.  A subscription, rightly or wrongly, leaves me feeling I "ought" to be playing a certain amount to "get my money's worth". 

Yes, I know that other people have other mind-sets about money and gaming, but that's mine.

If there had been a sensibly worded option like "I prefer buy to play", I would have chosen it.

Well according to A-net the B2P model has been successful since GW1.  We can argue about he definition of an MMORPG, but I believe GW1 fits the bill.  I agree with you Kyleran that a combination of B2P with sub and cash shop will be the next model most will follow.  I honestly prefer the Turbine model of a la carte or subscription model.  Aside from the companies negative press lately, that model seems (IN MY OPINION) pretty good.

Cheers!