Originally posted by Mephster
Sounds like your giving hope to games just because of the B2P business model. Whatever happened to judging a game based off of it's performance ? 

You can consider how a business model affects game development however.

Subscription models encourage developers to keep people in the game and paying for it.  You might think this is good, until you see the cheap and easy tactic is a bunch of treadmills with periodic carrots.  Basic operant conditioning used to reinforce behavior.  That overrides making sure the experience is as fun as possible.  Basically, the money is coming in anyway, the devs just have to keep people from canceling their subs and do as little work as possible to do that.  Part of this is classic foot-in-the-door psychology.

Free to Play games absolutely have to get money out of people.  There's no box price, so that means they have to find ways to get you to pay in a store.  So the game has to be designed to at least be annoying if you don't spend real money to save time or it has to constantly remind you about what you are missing if you don't spend money.  So the game gets cut up and the fun is messed up for non-payers.  And it has to then be designed so that this can be done easily.  This also tends to encourage an amount of immense grinding all the time...unless you fork over a fee, that is.  Some are better than others of course, but the gameplay is affected.

B2P though, they need to justify the upfront money with the content in the game.  On the bad side they can depend on hype and marketing to sell a bunch of boxes early on, though then the game will crash and burn (which isn't good if they want it to have a lifespan and make expansions).  So generally games that do well are good ones, because the content justifies the price tag.  There's not a big incentive to make any MT system that hurts the game experience, since they already have money for the content out of the players.  If new content is similarly made so that you buy it, then it also has to justify the cost by the quality of that content.

Originally posted by Mephster
Sounds like your giving hope to games just because of the B2P business model. Whatever happened to judging a game based off of it's performance ? 

I'm making the assumption that they all perform well enough. GW1 didn't compare well with full-meal-deal MMOs. GW2 does. And that's why their business model matters to everyone attempting to keep the P2P model alive.

Originally posted by Drachasor

Originally posted by Mephster
Sounds like your giving hope to games just because of the B2P business model. Whatever happened to judging a game based off of it's performance ? 

You can consider how a business model affects game development however.

Subscription models encourage developers to keep people in the game and paying for it.  You might think this is good, until you see the cheap and easy tactic is a bunch of treadmills with periodic carrots.  Basic operant conditioning used to reinforce behavior.  That overrides making sure the experience is as fun as possible.  Basically, the money is coming in anyway, the devs just have to keep people from canceling their subs and do as little work as possible to do that.  Part of this is classic foot-in-the-door psychology.

Free to Play games absolutely have to get money out of people.  There's no box price, so that means they have to find ways to get you to pay in a store.  So the game has to be designed to at least be annoying if you don't spend real money to save time or it has to constantly remind you about what you are missing if you don't spend money.  So the game gets cut up and the fun is messed up for non-payers.  And it has to then be designed so that this can be done easily.  This also tends to encourage an amount of immense grinding all the time...unless you fork over a fee, that is.  Some are better than others of course, but the gameplay is affected.

B2P though, they need to justify the upfront money with the content in the game.  On the bad side they can depend on hype and marketing to sell a bunch of boxes early on, though then the game will crash and burn (which isn't good if they want it to have a lifespan and make expansions).  So generally games that do well are good ones, because the content justifies the price tag.  There's not a big incentive to make any MT system that hurts the game experience, since they already have money for the content out of the players.  If new content is similarly made so that you buy it, then it also has to justify the cost by the quality of that content.

Well said.

Just my $0.02.

I don't like the model. Oh sure, I think it's a great concept on paper. But the reality is different.

It's a bit more involved than just "Sub Fee" vs. "No sub fee".

Let's say I want to play a GW2 character of each profession (and I do, and will) We are now upwards of getting close to $100 bucks.

Now with other game's expansions on the horizon, they are offering specials and deals that get you into the game cheap and into the upcoming expansions cheap and for a competitive price, an annual subscription.

This means that to make the features comparable, the B2P model doesn't really pull ahead for almost a year. Even if you cut features and go the min, It's still many months before there is a break even. That don't include any added content later on down the road. A game like Rift adds content like crazy all the time and they don't charge more for it. Will the B2P model offer this? I doubt it. Yes, the updates may be there, but they won't be at no added cost.

Then there is the dark side to the model. Remember we aren't just looking at ANET here, we are looking at the future of the model in hopes that others will adopt it right?

Wrong! So far, ANET has been very responsible with their Cash Shop offerings. But what if this changes? It's not outside the realm of real possibilities. But OK, even if ANET stays true to their customers and doesn't go in the wrong direction with it's shop. You cannot believe that the majority of these companies will act the same. No, I think they'll all do what they have proven themselves to do. Copy, cut corners, optimize for maximum profits, forget about quality......In short. the "Cash Grab" as it's become known.

Assuming ANET retains its integrity, It will be the exception, not the rule.

The only difference between a Buy to play and a Free to play is that with Buy to play you have to pay an upfront charge to play.

Ive been playing DCUO for 8 months and Ive spent less money on DCUO than Ive already spent on GW2.

So, how is the Buy to play superior again?

---

Originally posted by GeezerGamer Just my $0.02. I don't like the model. Oh sure, I think it's a great concept on paper. But the reality is different. It's a bit more involved than just "Sub Fee" vs. "No sub fee". Let's say I want to play a GW2 character of each profession (and I do, and will) We are now upwards of getting close to $100 bucks.

---

Or you could delete a character and play a new class. Not the best solution. On the other hand, when you buy that character slot, you have a pretty good idea of what you are getting into and whether it is worth it to you to play a new character. That's a lot better than what you see elsewhere. Given that the first 5 characters are probably going to be hundreds of hours of gameplay easily (quite possibly each), an additional 10 bucks isn't that much.

---

Originally posted by GeezerGamer
Now with other game's expansions on the horizon, they are offering specials and deals that get you into the game cheap and into the upcoming expansions cheap and for a competitive price, an annual subscription.

---

Eh, that's a pretty big assumption here. GW1 didn't switch from B2P to a subscription model. I have trouble seeing how that wouldn't alienate a lot of people. Assuming a B2P model and then switching it to a sub model partway through your argument doesn't really work as a critique of B2P. Unless you can show why this would inevitably happen.

---

Originally posted by GeezerGamer
This means that to make the features comparable, the B2P model doesn't really pull ahead for almost a year. Even if you cut features and go the min, It's still many months before there is a break even. That don't include any added content later on down the road. A game like Rift adds content like crazy all the time and they don't charge more for it. Will the B2P model offer this? I doubt it. Yes, the updates may be there, but they won't be at no added cost.

---

You have to look at the kind of content they add. Sub games add content that is very grindy, because that's a good way to keep their subs. The model encourages content that doesn't have a high return on fun per time invested, especially when you consider how often you'll be repeating the content again and again and again and again and again. That's just cheaper to produce and as long as you don't make people quit, you'll keep getting their money -- because once they have your sub, they no longer need to justify you spending money on them, now they'll lose the sub only if they make you quit. That might seem like a trivial distinction, but in terms of human psychology it is not.

---

Originally posted by GeezerGamer
Then there is the dark side to the model. Remember we aren't just looking at ANET here, we are looking at the future of the model in hopes that others will adopt it right? Wrong! So far, ANET has been very responsible with their Cash Shop offerings. But what if this changes? It's not outside the realm of real possibilities. But OK, even if ANET stays true to their customers and doesn't go in the wrong direction with it's shop. You cannot believe that the majority of these companies will act the same. No, I think they'll all do what they have proven themselves to do. Copy, cut corners, optimize for maximum profits, forget about quality......In short. the "Cash Grab" as it's become known. Assuming ANET retains its integrity, It will be the exception, not the rule.

---

Sure, just like any normal game out there. EA does this regularly with companies they buy and then slowly destroy. Thing is though, a lot of this stuff isn't exactly popular with gamers. People stop buying the brands EA acquires because their quality drops. People playing a B2P game have no financial investment in the game each month, so they can stop playing more easily than a sub-based game. However bad the shenanigans in a B2P game can be, they can be just as bad in a game like WoW. But unlike WoW, there's no feeling of "I've spent hundreds of dollars on this game, so I have to make it worth it and keep playing." Certainly if a B2P was coming on the market people would carefully analyze any cash shop it might have. We do that regularly. There's a huge stigma even with F2P cash shops that are P2Win, and it would be even larger if they asked for money up front.

Sure, people could get hoodwinked, but that happens with a lot of games already. It doesn't change the fact that if a B2P game did that it would crash and burn pretty quick and that the model encourages the development of better games than the others.

It's not a perfect model, but it is better than the alternatives.

Originally posted by Xiaoki

The only difference between a Buy to play and a Free to play is that with Buy to play you have to pay an upfront charge to play.

Ive been playing DCUO for 8 months and Ive spent less money on DCUO than Ive already spent on GW2.

So, how is the Buy to play superior again?

You tell me.  You bought GW2.

What about its design appealed to you that DCUO lacked? (and I'd note, DCUO was originally designed as a P2P game).

Originally posted by Drachasor

Originally posted by Mephster
Sounds like your giving hope to games just because of the B2P business model. Whatever happened to judging a game based off of it's performance ? 

You can consider how a business model affects game development however.

Subscription models encourage developers to keep people in the game and paying for it.  You might think this is good, until you see the cheap and easy tactic is a bunch of treadmills with periodic carrots.  Basic operant conditioning used to reinforce behavior.  That overrides making sure the experience is as fun as possible.  Basically, the money is coming in anyway, the devs just have to keep people from canceling their subs and do as little work as possible to do that.  Part of this is classic foot-in-the-door psychology.

Free to Play games absolutely have to get money out of people.  There's no box price, so that means they have to find ways to get you to pay in a store.  So the game has to be designed to at least be annoying if you don't spend real money to save time or it has to constantly remind you about what you are missing if you don't spend money.  So the game gets cut up and the fun is messed up for non-payers.  And it has to then be designed so that this can be done easily.  This also tends to encourage an amount of immense grinding all the time...unless you fork over a fee, that is.  Some are better than others of course, but the gameplay is affected.

B2P though, they need to justify the upfront money with the content in the game.  On the bad side they can depend on hype and marketing to sell a bunch of boxes early on, though then the game will crash and burn (which isn't good if they want it to have a lifespan and make expansions).  So generally games that do well are good ones, because the content justifies the price tag.  There's not a big incentive to make any MT system that hurts the game experience, since they already have money for the content out of the players.  If new content is similarly made so that you buy it, then it also has to justify the cost by the quality of that content.

So thats us screwed? or do you just decide which one suits your playstyle, whether you're having fun and forget about the supposed nefarious tactics going on behind the scenes?

---

Originally posted by Drachasor

---

Originally posted by GeezerGamer Just my $0.02. I don't like the model. Oh sure, I think it's a great concept on paper. But the reality is different. It's a bit more involved than just "Sub Fee" vs. "No sub fee". Let's say I want to play a GW2 character of each profession (and I do, and will) We are now upwards of getting close to $100 bucks.

Or you could delete a character and play a new class. Not the best solution. On the other hand, when you buy that character slot, you have a pretty good idea of what you are getting into and whether it is worth it to you to play a new character. That's a lot better than what you see elsewhere. Given that the first 5 characters are probably going to be hundreds of hours of gameplay easily (quite possibly each), an additional 10 bucks isn't that much.

---

Originally posted by GeezerGamer
Now with other game's expansions on the horizon, they are offering specials and deals that get you into the game cheap and into the upcoming expansions cheap and for a competitive price, an annual subscription.

Eh, that's a pretty big assumption here. GW1 didn't switch from B2P to a subscription model. I have trouble seeing how that wouldn't alienate a lot of people. Assuming a B2P model and then switching it to a sub model partway through your argument doesn't really work as a critique of B2P. Unless you can show why this would inevitably happen.

Originally posted by GeezerGamer
This means that to make the features comparable, the B2P model doesn't really pull ahead for almost a year. Even if you cut features and go the min, It's still many months before there is a break even. That don't include any added content later on down the road. A game like Rift adds content like crazy all the time and they don't charge more for it. Will the B2P model offer this? I doubt it. Yes, the updates may be there, but they won't be at no added cost.

---

You have to look at the kind of content they add. Sub games add content that is very grindy, because that's a good way to keep their subs. The model encourages content that doesn't have a high return on fun per time invested, especially when you consider how often you'll be repeating the content again and again and again and again and again. That's just cheaper to produce and as long as you don't make people quit, you'll keep getting their money -- because once they have your sub, they no longer need to justify you spending money on them, now they'll lose the sub only if they make you quit. That might seem like a trivial distinction, but in terms of human psychology it is not.

Originally posted by GeezerGamer
Then there is the dark side to the model. Remember we aren't just looking at ANET here, we are looking at the future of the model in hopes that others will adopt it right? Wrong! So far, ANET has been very responsible with their Cash Shop offerings. But what if this changes? It's not outside the realm of real possibilities. But OK, even if ANET stays true to their customers and doesn't go in the wrong direction with it's shop. You cannot believe that the majority of these companies will act the same. No, I think they'll all do what they have proven themselves to do. Copy, cut corners, optimize for maximum profits, forget about quality......In short. the "Cash Grab" as it's become known. Assuming ANET retains its integrity, It will be the exception, not the rule.

---

 

Sure, just like any normal game out there. EA does this regularly with companies they buy and then slowly destroy. Thing is though, a lot of this stuff isn't exactly popular with gamers. People stop buying the brands EA acquires because their quality drops. People playing a B2P game have no financial investment in the game each month, so they can stop playing more easily than a sub-based game. However bad the shenanigans in a B2P game can be, they can be just as bad in a game like WoW. But unlike WoW, there's no feeling of "I've spent hundreds of dollars on this game, so I have to make it worth it and keep playing." Certainly if a B2P was coming on the market people would carefully analyze any cash shop it might have. We do that regularly. There's a huge stigma even with F2P cash shops that are P2Win, and it would be even larger if they asked for money up front.

Sure, people could get hoodwinked, but that happens with a lot of games already. It doesn't change the fact that if a B2P game did that it would crash and burn pretty quick and that the model encourages the development of better games than the others.

It's not a perfect model, but it is better than the alternatives.

---

Just so we keep it apples to apples....I get that it may be hard do do that given the topic.

I'm not talking about workarounds. I'm talking about what you get for the moeny you spend. Let's put the GW2 vs WoW/Rift aside. We are talking about a revenue model for new games going forward.

That means, it's not about deleting an unused character. Its about whether you are going to buy character slots "A-La-mode" or get them all with a sub fee. The point is... Can I or can't I roll one of each toon if I wanted to? In B2P I can but it's going to cost me.

The 2nd part, I'm not sure I made my point clear. I want' trying to talk about converting models. I was talking about making sure we are factoring all the costs and not part of them. There is more to be calculated than just paying a sub or not. Factoring all the special offers associated with a sub model, it becomes less expensive than $15/mo. And for how many months. You need to look at the total cash expense over the course of the time you play. 3 Mo, 6Mo, 1 Yr or more. And how much and how frequent are the content "boosters"?

Again, The nature of the content itself is not in question. I am talking about how you are going to get it. Is it just like Character Slots or is it included in the sub.

Well, I'll tell you what. I've pre purchased GW2. I plan to open all slots and I'll probably buy any content that is released. in the next year. I also plan to take advantage of Rift's Expansion offer for $120. Get the expansion and a year sub.

If the overall cost to play the games either way is relatively close, then I'll continue to say P2P is superior, If it's not, I can admit I was wrong.

I've already admitted I was wrong about a number of things regarding GW2 after playing it for the 1st time.

I will also admit, where the biggest advantage of B2P lies is in that you can put it down and come back at any time. But then again, even if you do so, you might find yourself needing to purchase some content that had been released since your took a break. But that kinda takes some of the wind out of the sails IMO.

The f2p market is finally starting to crack. F2p games are failing monthly. Just look at the MMORPG topic history over the last three months. F2P is not the panacea that game companies and cheap gamers thought it would be. Just like sub games, the better f2p games will survive but just by being f2p is not going to be winner.

I am a firm believer in keeping a sub for a high quality game or company. I have two subs active now - WOW and Rift. I still think WOW is better than any other AAA MMO. I don't play Rift much anymore but I have an annual sub that I will renew  because I like Trion - they are the best company that I have seen for listening to their players.

Because of the world economy I think that MMO market is going to get much smaller. I don't believe it matters whether or not a game is f2p or b2p or sub. When the money stops rolling in because the number of player that can afford to play MMOs drop, you will see a real die-off. I will be pessimistic and say that if there is a world depression, as some economists predict, you will see the MMO market collapse completely.

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

 

---

Originally posted by Drachasor

---

SNIP!

---

 

 

Sure, just like any normal game out there. EA does this regularly with companies they buy and then slowly destroy. Thing is though, a lot of this stuff isn't exactly popular with gamers. People stop buying the brands EA acquires because their quality drops. People playing a B2P game have no financial investment in the game each month, so they can stop playing more easily than a sub-based game. However bad the shenanigans in a B2P game can be, they can be just as bad in a game like WoW. But unlike WoW, there's no feeling of "I've spent hundreds of dollars on this game, so I have to make it worth it and keep playing." Certainly if a B2P was coming on the market people would carefully analyze any cash shop it might have. We do that regularly. There's a huge stigma even with F2P cash shops that are P2Win, and it would be even larger if they asked for money up front.

Sure, people could get hoodwinked, but that happens with a lot of games already. It doesn't change the fact that if a B2P game did that it would crash and burn pretty quick and that the model encourages the development of better games than the others.

It's not a perfect model, but it is better than the alternatives.

---

 

Just so we keep it apples to apples....I get that it may be hard do do that given the topic.

I'm not talking about workarounds. I'm talking about what you get for the moeny you spend. Let's put the GW2 vs WoW/Rift aside. We are talking about a revenue model for new games going forward.

That means, it's not about deleting an unused character. Its about whether you are going to buy character slots "A-La-mode" or get them all with a sub fee. The point is... Can I or can't I roll one of each toon if I wanted to? In B2P I can but it's going to cost me.

The 2nd part, I'm not sure I made my point clear. I want' trying to talk about converting models. I was talking about making sure we are factoring all the costs and not part of them. There is more to be calculated than just paying a sub or not. Factoring all the special offers associated with a sub model, it becomes less expensive than $15/mo. And for how many months. You need to look at the total cash expense over the course of the time you play. 3 Mo, 6Mo, 1 Yr or more. And how much and how frequent are the content "boosters"?

Again, The nature of the content itself is not in question. I am talking about how you are going to get it. Is it just like Character Slots or is it included in the sub.

Well, I'll tell you what. I've pre purchased GW2. I plan to open all slots and I'll probably buy any content that is released. in the next year. I also plan to take advantage of Rift's Expansion offer for $120. Get the expansion and a year sub.

If the overall cost to play the games either way is relatively close, then I'll continue to say P2P is superior, If it's not, I can admit I was wrong.

I've already admitted I was wrong about a number of things regarding GW2 after playing it for the 1st time.

I will also admit, where the biggest advantage of B2P lies is in that you can put it down and come back at any time. But then again, even if you do so, you might find yourself needing to purchase some content that had been released since your took a break. But that kinda takes some of the wind out of the sails IMO.

So the skinny is... You're going to have to pay either way it just boils down to HOW MUCH!... there endith the life lesson kids 

Originally posted by tordurbar

The f2p market is finally starting to crack. F2p games are failing monthly. Just look at the MMORPG topic history over the last three months. F2P is not the panacea that game companies and cheap gamers thought it would be. Just like sub games, the better f2p games will survive but just by being f2p is not going to be winner.

I am a firm believer in keeping a sub for a high quality game or company. I have two subs active now - WOW and Rift. I still think WOW is better than any other AAA MMO. I don't play Rift much anymore but I have an annual sub that I will renew  because I like Trion - they are the best company that I have seen for listening to their players.

Because of the world economy I think that MMO market is going to get much smaller. I don't believe it matters whether or not a game is f2p or b2p or sub. When the money stops rolling in because the number of player that can afford to play MMOs drop, you will see a real die-off. I will be pessimistic and say that if there is a world depression, as some economists predict, you will see the MMO market collapse completely.

 

What F2P games are failing and how has that changed post Freemium boom? or are you pulling "facts" out of your..... hat? 

I think there is room for all models provided they adhere to the following structure:

Sub model:  No cash shop, regular updates and either free expansions or paid expansions

B2P model:  fluff cash shop, small updates, paid expansions.

F2P:  P2W cash shop, regular updates with free expansions.

---

SNIP!    

So the skinny is... You're going to have to pay either way it just boils down to HOW MUCH!... there endith the life lesson kids 

---

and for how long.

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Lots of things.

Just so you know, you can buy cash shop money with in game currency, thus rendering your entire argument invalid.  Playing one of each class is free.

Originally posted by Badaboom

I think there is room for all models provided they adhere to the following structure:

Sub model:  No cash shop, regular updates and either free expansions or paid expansions

B2P model:  fluff cash shop, small updates, paid expansions.

F2P:  P2W cash shop, regular updates with free expansions.

Sub-Model : Vulnerable to inflationary pressures without increasing monthly fee. Company under intense pressure to offset inflation (apx. 450 subscriptions a month needed and retained for 1 year. seach for Eve Online and Idgarad on how those numbers work) High level of deterence for griefer if a box purchase is required for an account along with subscription, however as with B2P little deterence to profiteers. (Getting banned can get expensive if you are not making money.) Tend to have well developed communities especially if active subscription is needed to participate in forums.

B2P: Moderately able to respond to inflation by introducting new goods into the market. New goods can be priced higher to adjust for inflation. If expected market penetration for post-sale goods is 10% only 50 new subscriptions by my estimate are needed to offset inflation. Moderate barrier to griefers as the initial box cost can sting deterring community griefers. However profiteers (gold farmers) may be able to recoup the cost and profit meaning B2P deters asshats and dickwads but not well organized grey market players and botters. Moderate controls to develop their community base but vulnerability to profiteers can drag on the community.

F2P: Highly adaptable to inflation with high volume, low margin goods. As with B2P goods can be priced in a market competitive fashion allowing to react to inflation. Virtually no barrier for griefer. Once banned a disposable email address later and they are back. Highest risk of a self-destructive community as no deterrent to griefers.

I see B2P as the ideal median ground between business and players.

Sub Model:

B2P:

F2P:Anyone who has played LoL for instance can see the vulnerability in the community. Tribunal bans are irrelivant if you have a dozen alt accounts you can play.

(sorry have to cut short conf. call, will try and get sub and B2P examples if time today...)

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Just so we keep it apples to apples....I get that it may be hard do do that given the topic.

I'm not talking about workarounds. I'm talking about what you get for the moeny you spend. Let's put the GW2 vs WoW/Rift aside. We are talking about a revenue model for new games going forward.

That means, it's not about deleting an unused character. Its about whether you are going to buy character slots "A-La-mode" or get them all with a sub fee. The point is... Can I or can't I roll one of each toon if I wanted to? In B2P I can but it's going to cost me.

The 2nd part, I'm not sure I made my point clear. I want' trying to talk about converting models. I was talking about making sure we are factoring all the costs and not part of them. There is more to be calculated than just paying a sub or not. Factoring all the special offers associated with a sub model, it becomes less expensive than $15/mo. And for how many months. You need to look at the total cash expense over the course of the time you play. 3 Mo, 6Mo, 1 Yr or more. And how much and how frequent are the content "boosters"?

Again, The nature of the content itself is not in question. I am talking about how you are going to get it. Is it just like Character Slots or is it included in the sub.

Well, I'll tell you what. I've pre purchased GW2. I plan to open all slots and I'll probably buy any content that is released. in the next year. I also plan to take advantage of Rift's Expansion offer for $120. Get the expansion and a year sub.

If the overall cost to play the games either way is relatively close, then I'll continue to say P2P is superior, If it's not, I can admit I was wrong.

I've already admitted I was wrong about a number of things regarding GW2 after playing it for the 1st time.

I will also admit, where the biggest advantage of B2P lies is in that you can put it down and come back at any time. But then again, even if you do so, you might find yourself needing to purchase some content that had been released since your took a break. But that kinda takes some of the wind out of the sails IMO.

In GW2 as an example of A B2P game, you can roll one of each race for the 60 buck fee without deleting a character.  You get 5 character slots.  It's not like FFXI where you got one (IIRC).  You can certainly roll other characters if you don't mind deleting one.  I'm not saying that's a great option, but it is an option.

Even at less expense than 15 bucks a month, say 10 bucks (which is below what they cost), that's still 120 bucks a year.  That's two top of the line games, but really more like 3-4 top of the line games in terms of profit since the company gets 100% profit with no middleman.  Or twice that many expansions for normal games.  You don't remotely see that much new content in any P2P MMO.  Nor does spending 10 bucks there give you hundreds of hours of gameplay.  Even playing 5 hours a day that's just 150 hours in a month.  So can't say the return per dollar is that great compared to say a character slot.

And the business model matters a TON here.  In a P2P game, they need to convince you not to leave.  That's easier than convincing you to buy a game since you're already invested.  The model also encourages treadmills and repetitive play with carrots for this reason and because that's a good way to condition people to keep doing a task.  This is not quality gameplay here.

Coming back to a B2P game after not playing it is a lot easier as you say.  If there's new content, you don't have to buy it right away if you don't want to.  You can see if you actually enjoy playing it again or not first.  If you do then you can buy the new content.  You can also read up on reviews for the new content and what people are saying to see if it is a sensible decision.  This encourages smart spending of money, and hence it encourages game designers to make really fun content.  They have to convince people to buy which is better for a game that just convincing them not to leave.

To help emphasize the latter difference.  Convincing people to buy means you have to convince them to perform an action.  Convincing them to stay means you just have to convince them not to do something.  It's easier to convince people to not take an action than it is to get them to take it.  So there's good reason to think that a B2P model will produce higher quality content more akin to good non-MMO content in terms of the fun per moment factor (something gear treadmills and the like are lacking).