GW2 should be P2P

[Noomz]

I for one know, that I will buy stuff for GW2 from their stores. I have no idea what that might be, but I'm convinced I'll want to buy some of it :P

[Niwoe]

I would also argue that SWTOR had almost an unlimited budget because they were banking on sub fees to recoup that. And what did we get for all that? A "better" game than WoW? A "better" game than GW2? I do not think so.

[Dosvidaniya]

The thing I find most amusing is that people say these things while some of the companies advocating the subscription actually invalidate all the logic behind the subscription. Look at Blizzard. They released SC2. It's B2P. However, you connect to their server for almost every game. There is an option to avoid it for single player - limited stuff. (D3 is set to operate in the same manner). However, most people are actually using their servers just to play and pay no sub. Patches are still released. Bugs are fixed. Balance is kept up. Customer service exists. New content is being released with the x-pacs. Yes, it isn't as frequent; however, given the $140+ you'll spend on a wow sub, are you really getting 2+ x-pacs of additional features each year in wow?

I have SW:ToR right now. When I actually look at the numbers, I realize I am being cheated. $30 is half of the cost of an x-pac. They haven't come close to adding that to the game. Somehow the other BW B2P games have gotten the same support and enhancements. I've paid $30 for 1 ops continuation and 1 fp with some glorious promises being made with no progress shown. Honestly when I think through the numbers, it's amazing I'm stupid enough to pay for sub games. When GW2 hits, I don't think I'll pay one again. They really do cheat you.

[DrakeWurrum]

oh wow. that seems crazy but then again when WoW came out with the new dragon suddenly half the people on my server seem to have it, so i can believe it. thanks

[godofslack]

Every game that was originally subscription based that went free to play has shown a large income increase. And that's without having to buy the box. The astonishing belief that subscription fees are necessary for success has lead to tons of games that easily could of been more successful falling off the earth in a couple of months. For example RIFT could of been far more successful if it had a freemium model. Famously, Lord of the Rings Online doubled it's income by accepting a free to play model.

[DrakeWurrum]

Every game that was originally subscription based that went free to play has shown a large income increase. And that's without having to buy the box. The astonishing belief that subscription fees are necessary for success has lead to tons of games that easily could of been more successful falling off the earth in a couple of months. For example RIFT could of been far more successful if it had a freemium model. Famously, Lord of the Rings Online doubled it's income by accepting a free to play model.

And yet again I keep wishing I could find some official/professional web site dedicated to keeping track of that kind of data, so that "Joe Schmoe" can open it up and see the truth with his own eyes, instead of just accepting it as he logs into WoW. :<

Like others have said: It happens because we let it happen.

[Deleted]

As much as I love WoW, and I'm no hater of it by any means, the idea that my subscription fee alone sustained the development of patch content is, if I may put it bluntly, farcical. Without getting into a debate over it, it's clear that WoW generated profit does not get put back into WoW solely. One of things I like about F2P models; it's been a few months since I last logged into WoW and I don't whether I will back for MoP or not, and the idea of all my characters which I spent so much time on(the longest of any computer game I've played by far) just rotting on the servers until they get deleted saddens me and this does not need to happen in F2P models where I can just log in from time to time with no commitment. We are all guilty of sometimes pulling numbers from our ass and making conclusions, I even done it at the start of the post, but how much is it to keep servers up,maintain a decent level of CS, and keep the game alive with content actually cost? Even Blizzard don't claim that their subscription fees are needed for this and state quite clearly that our subs paid not for content but access to the game. Of course content will not be free with GW2, but neither does it come free in WoW or any other P2P MMO.

[Eggoman]

Don't just dismiss the idea outright, think about it.

I know GW2 is free to play and i love this, but i think without a subscription will we suffer with lack of content, updates or support? Server quality? Will the game have GM's? With pay to play you can normally expect good support and frequent content, but GW2 will most likely follow the expansion pack and micro transaction route instead..

Look at WoW look at Rift look at SWTOR. While none of them are all terrible at content, updates, support, server quality, and not having good GM's. Each one is terribad at one or two of those things.

IMHO P2P has very... very little to do with anything you are concerned with. The stuff you are concerned with is going to be an issue with ANET end not an income thing.

[Katsuga]

Not having a sub fee, and having to buy content through xpacs, actually leads to more and better quality content, not less. How can people not see this?

A sub fee has you paying for access. Access isn't content... so why should they make any new content?

Buying content, however, forces ANet to ... you know... actually make content to sell. And the money they make is directly proportional to the quality and frequency of the content they make. This encourages higher quality and more frequent content updates, not less.

/economics101

This

Guild Wars still have over 1 million active subs despite it being an old game. The wanted to keep the same payment model when they went over to the new game and I think it has very much potential to actually take up the fight with WoW, and being a b2p game just helps the advertisement in addition to the fact that it's a VERY promising MMO.

[Razeo]

Look at WoW look at Rift look at SWTOR. While none of them are all terrible at content, updates, support, server quality, and not having good GM's. Each one is terribad at one or two of those things.

Actually, for a cash cow like WoW... it is terrible at content. If it was any other MMo like Star trek online, DCUO, Fallen earth etc.. i'd understand. But they're raking in money at the millions each month and what did we get for it? Re-hashed content from 2-3 expansions ago, mobs and bosses with the same models since vanilla, content patches every 5-6 months, 25$ FOR A MOUNT you'll get tired of seeing after a day. Those are just off the top of my head, if there's one thing though that Blizzard has over all the other video game companies right now its their customer service, those guys must get paid dough to be polite and get the results as fast as they do.

[DrakeWurrum]

its their customer service, those guys must get paid dough to be polite and get the results as fast as they do.

IIRC, the rate back in 2007 for an entry-level position in their CS department (which, btw, happens to be Game Master...) was $9/hr.

Not much by some standards, but it beats minimum wage in Texas by a mile.

[MKing]

SNIPE

GW1 doesn't have 1 million active subs, In 2009 they hit 6mil players though.
http://massively.joystiq.com/2009/04...ion-milestone/

[Borzo]

I dunno about that either. I think they've sold 7 million boxes. But that includes xpacs/campaigns.

[Rapti]

if there's one thing though that Blizzard has over all the other video game companies right now its their customer service, those guys must get paid dough to be polite and get the results as fast as they do.

Dunno... Ive seen in US a lot of complaints at GMs, however in EU I seem to see people being quite happy with GMs. Tough one thing I can tell you if youre a CS - not being polite and effective gets you usually fired very fast.
With having to do as a supervisor of CS I can tell you that those people get some serious talks if they "fail", and most (not everything, thank god! *wristcut*) is checked after each "help request" if it was done correctly. If they dont improve, they get fired.
ps. They dont get payed any crazy money either. Usually its one of worst payed jobs :P.

[Sargerus]

GW1 doesn't have 1 million active subs, In 2009 they hit 6mil players though.

6 mil players or 6 mil boxes sold? There is a difference

[MKing]

6 mil players or 6 mil boxes sold? There is a difference

Read link.

[Sargerus]

Read link.

ArenaNet have announced that Guild Wars has sold over six million copies

Again: Copies sold =/= Active players

[DrakeWurrum]

The thing is that the game doesn't need to have players that are constantly active in order for it to be successful.

How many "active players" did Assassin's Creed 2 have at any point in time?

[Borzo]

The thing is that the game doesn't need to have players that are constantly active in order for it to be successful.

How many "active players" did Assassin's Creed 2 have at any point in time?

Depends if you are referring to financial success, or some other kind...

The number of active players in assassin's creed doesn't really affect MY gameplay in anyway. That line of reasoning does NOT apply to MMORPGs though... as having other players around significantly improves my enjoyment of the game.

[MKing]

Depends if you are referring to financial success, or some other kind...

The number of active players in assassin's creed doesn't really affect MY gameplay in anyway. That line of reasoning does NOT apply to MMORPGs though... as having other players around significantly improves my enjoyment of the game.

How does having more active players than you can group with affect your gameplay at all besides economy? and if we are going by active players Maple Story would win miles ahead of WoW because at a point in time they had over 30mil active. that game was horrible though.