Originally posted by Eir_S

Originally posted by SoMuchMass

Without question Pay-to-Play and the subscription model.

F2P and B2P models are for games that are not good enough to deserve a sub fee.

Some of those F2P's started out as P2P's.  You never know what's "good enough" until it sinks.

Yeah it wasn't good enough to warrant a subscription fee, even if the devs asked for it.  If ESO goes B2P or F2P I would be concerned, to me it shows that the devs don't have confidence in their game.

Originally posted by SoMuchMass

Originally posted by Eir_S

Originally posted by SoMuchMass

Without question Pay-to-Play and the subscription model.

F2P and B2P models are for games that are not good enough to deserve a sub fee.

Some of those F2P's started out as P2P's.  You never know what's "good enough" until it sinks.

Yeah it wasn't good enough to warrant a subscription fee, even if the devs asked for it.  If ESO goes B2P or F2P I would be concerned, to me it shows that the devs don't have confidence in their game.

I used to think that way too about games that went F2P, but some of them turn a better profit now.  And the ones that were always F2P like Maple Story or even LoL have millions upon millions of users.  I'm still not sure what P2P going F2P really means, but sometimes it doesn't seem that bad for business.

What's good for business isn't necessarily good for player (especially the core/dedicated gamer).

It can be good for the casual/game hopping player though, because they have no committment to the game.

Originally posted by Tuktz

What's good for business isn't necessarily good for player (especially the core/dedicated gamer).

 

It can be good for the casual/game hopping player though, because they have no committment to the game.

Ya gaming has changed. Subs need to as well. Casual player who plays 1-4hr a week and paying 15 bucks a month can be a little muich. Families who have 2-4 people playing together that dont get a deal for doing so. The hardcore gamer who is now playing 2-4 MMOs because he is finished all the content and needs to play more then one MMO to do so, may find 2-4 subs costing to much. 

MMOs dont cost what they used to, networking and internet costs are very small compaired to 10 years ago. Dev tools that were not here 10 years ago. My question is a flat 15 bucks a month fair? Can MMOs make more money if they charged 7.99 a month because more people would play? Does GW2 B2P with a cash shop thats not pay to win a real option?

Yeah, the MMO genre is MASSIVE compared to what it was a decade ago.

However a lot of that is due to the mmo's that are catering more and more to the casual gamer. Kind of kills the immersion for us oldschool gamers though.

But it's catch 22, more people to play with is a good thing, but no sense of community due to casual game hopping players is bad.

Gotta be some good middle ground in there somewhere. ;-)

well i already know it is not free to play, since i already paid for my copy.  but i would prefer buy to play as opposed to subcription fees so long as it doesn't turn into pay to win.  subsciption fees are annoying and on there way out. you can tell this by games like GW2 which are far suppeior to WoW and are using the B2P model. i can't even recall ANY modern MMORPG that uses P2P.  SW:TOR tried it but their game sucked so bad they changed it to F2P.

i have heard a great model for  a B2P TESO. since modding has always been a huge part of TES, the shop can consist of  player mods like weapons, armor, mounts, and client based mods such as WoWs 'heal bot'.  maybe voted on by the players and approved by ZOS to prevent game breakers and op mods.  that way ZOS and bethesda would make money and modders would get to see their work come to life.

Has to be pay to play for me, my theory about the differences between the two communities will be summed up bellow in a handy matrix I am going to make. You can use this for any mmorpg. That's ok, no need to thank me.

Free to play community

Window-licking, knuckle dragging, uni-brow sporting products of relationships between brother and sister. IQ's and personalities equivalent to common house bricks.

Pay to play community

Exactly the same as free to play communities only with less free loading, self entitled never do wells and hairy backs.

As you can see from the above matrix there is only one logical choice. Please feel free to correct my math if you feel it doesn't add up.

I vote for either B2P or F2P with a Sub option. My biggest issue is that I've got 4 kids. So if they wanted to all play with dad and do dungeon runs together (which would be sweet, but rarely happens) then I'd still have to shell out $60 for the damn game for each of them. 

Sub-option games like SWTOR would be good if the F2P wasn't over-cooked. I mean I hear what everyone says about SWTOR and it's true, it might be a bit over the top. I still sub at the moment, because I'd like to play through each storyline, but that doesn't mean I'll sub forever. I'll be right back on the F2P train as soon as I'm done with the stories, as my time with it will decrease. Plus, SWTOR at least gives you free cash shop monies each month, so even if I horded that I could go F2P without much worry about losing funcitonality. So it still is KIND OF a loyalty program :) Unless you let it burn a hole in your pocket and just spend it.

 Now B2P + P2P + Cash Shop games are not my idea of good value *cough* WoW!

Doesn't matter what the model is for TESO I'll still put money into it one way or another. 

i dont like P2P model but im not expecting TESO as a F2P mmo. I want it to be Buy to Play (like GW2) with a subscription option for added perks (no limitations for B2P players, instead add extra valuable perks to subscribers to justify their subs).

If its only P2P ill buy it, play the first free month, then uninstall.

P2P is my preference.

I can't stand cash shops and the need by the developer to drive business there by making the game inconvenient to play in F2P or B2P models. B2P with cash shop is the worst, imo. Not only have you purchased a full game, but now you're expected to pay beyond a box price to unlock features that should have been inluded in the original purchase (lookin' at you GW2...). No thanks.

Originally posted by Gravarg

P2P

 

There's more advantages for both players and the company when you have a subscription.

What are the advantages? Name one?

There aren't any really. It is a strawman argument.

All the different gaming models are viable with F2P even more viable the P2P - why do I say that? Look at all the games that are F2P with CS now compared to P2P - it shows that the P2P is not valid any more.

Originally posted by rygard49

 

B2P with cash shop is the worst, imo. Not only have you purchased a full game, but now you're expected to pay beyond a box price to unlock features that should have been inluded in the original purchase (lookin' at you GW2...). No thanks.

In GW2 you dont have to pay for content to go beyond anywhere. Now, if i were to blindly answer the same way you are doing it (with hatred towards certain model) then i would say P2P is the worst, not only you have to pay full box price and expansions, but you have to pay every month even to log in.

Just accept that every model is viable when done right. You said P2P is your preference, so you should know that THAT doesnt mean other models are wrong, you just like one. The only wrong model is the P2W used by shady companies that dont care about games and customers, only about money.

You'ld be surprised how many times my scrum team has been taken off new and awesome projects to work on this great new "premium" feature/item for a cash shop.

I work in the industry and I loathe cash shops, but not because of what they could offer or if it becomes P2W or whatnot ... it is mostly because they negatively impact the game. When innovations or features don't get worked on just to sell an item in a cash shop you are left with lesser game.  Ultimately the gamers on the design team  become less motivated to do what they do best because they are always being forced to work on the next big $$ item.   The industry is all about making money, so if a game ever released a borderline P2W item and it starts making lots of money be prepared for the cash grab.

It's ESO not TESO!

Please get this through your heads.

And... FTP if done correctly.

I think B2P would be the fairest option for this game's potential customers. P2P wouldn't be sustainable as the design model they've chosen for this game is way too constrained to provide with any meaningful and filling metagame.

60-80 € box price for a 2-4 month ride and combat-centric PvP; then, subsequent DLCs as they release more canned content: this would be a fair value deal in my view.

Originally posted by Dinasty

It's ESO not TESO!

Please get this through your heads.

And... FTP if done correctly.

wrong. it is "The Elder Scrolls"  and "The Elder Scrolls Online" not  simply  "Elder scrolls online"

Originally posted by botrytis

Originally posted by Gravarg

P2P

 

There's more advantages for both players and the company when you have a subscription.

What are the advantages? Name one?

 

There aren't any really. It is a strawman argument.

 

All the different gaming models are viable with F2P even more viable the P2P - why do I say that? Look at all the games that are F2P with CS now compared to P2P - it shows that the P2P is not valid any more.

I'll name multiple:

1. Content that is created without any nickel and diming in mind. Everything is made for the enjoyment of the player to keep them subbing, not as a ploy to get them to feel they NEED to open their wallets to enjoy the game properly.

2. More consistent profit = more consistent content development. Sure, this varies from game to game, but I'm hard pressed to think of a F2P mmo that has content added at the same rate of most premium P2P mmos.

3. This one might be subjective, but in my experience of playing these games for over a decade (both P2P and F2P), the community is typically better in a game with a subscription. As another poster said, there's more of a sense of a community investment, and I agree with that. WoW is the exception, not the rule. Besides, when you have a game with millions of players, you're going to get some bad seeds, even when it requires a subsription. That said, there are plenty of great people there too, you just have to weed through the bad to find the good.

4. F2P makes it far easier for bots and spammers to infest the game. Sure, there are bots and spammers anywhere you go, but there will undoubtedly be less of them when players are required to buy a box and sub first - especially if the company is vigilant in banning those that do it (which would then require them to buy and sub again).

I could go on about how the F2P system still has a stigma attached to it that rivals abortion rights in the deep south, but since you only asked for one example, this should suffice.

It's certainly not just a "strawman argument", by any means.