Question about the "no subscription system".

[Deleted]

To enjoy GW2 the way it was ment to be you'll be looking at an amount of money of 12$ a month on extra things. It's the way expensive F2P games work.

Hah, GW2 isn't a F2P game. It's B2P. Consider it like picking up a single player game, but it's actually a mmo, without having to pay for it each month just to be allowed to pay.

Like Omlech said, if you're ignorant, please refrain from posting until you have all the facts.

[Deleted]

I don't trust a, B2P with cash shop model at all but will give it a chance with GW2.

The first item that screams "Buy to win!" and it's over though.

No worries, the devs already stated that there won't be anything ''Buy to win!'' in the cash shop. GW1 had a cash shop (even WoW has a 'cash shop' with name/look/realm changes) and that never sold anything which could make you win. And you couldn't sell it for massive $$ in-game neither.

[nalle]

WoW cost $20 million /month in server fees, support etc.

Devide that on the 10 million players that have an active subscription and you get a whooping $2 /month in each subscription going to that, then sure we could add another $2 /month for patches just to be nice to Blizzard for making a great game.

So, $4 /month would cover everything and more when it comes to WoW (and then I'm not even counting what they earn on the box sales and the Blizzard Store which has the same system that GW2s cash shop will use), the rest goes to development and pure profit.



So in essence Guild Wars 2, just as Guild Wars 1, can put out just as much content with just as good quality as WoW without a subscription fee (just so there's no misunderstandings here, GW2 will not have as many servers and support employees as blizzard, at least not in the start, so the monthly cost will be lower making it valid against earnings of the Box sales).

[Jovanaar]

WoW cost $20 million /month in server fees, support etc.

Devide that on the 10 million players that have an active subscription and you get a whooping $2 /month in each subscription going to that, then sure we could add another $2 /month for patches just to be nice to Blizzard for making a great game.

So, $4 /month would cover everything and more when it comes to WoW (and then I'm not even counting what they earn on the box sales and the Blizzard Store which has the same system that GW2s cash shop will use), the rest goes to development and pure profit.



So in essence Guild Wars 2, just as Guild Wars 1, can put out just as much content with just as good quality as WoW without a subscription fee (just so there's no misunderstandings here, GW2 will not have as many servers and support employees as blizzard, at least not in the start, so the monthly cost will be lower making it valid against earnings of the Box sales).

I like people who put out numbers just like that.

[Squirrelbanes]

There's a video I just watched that shows wow's end of year account in another thread (I think, unless it's on P3 ). His numbers are completely correct

[nalle]

I like people who put out numbers just like that.

The numbers are taken from the video about no subscription fee ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns-IIn-DG-c ) which has taken it's numbers from Blizzard.

The $20 million /month is accurate.

Watch the video or dig up the documents yourself if you want.

[Jovanaar]

There's a video I just watched that shows wow's end of year account in another thread (I think, unless it's on P3 ). His numbers are completely correct

Fair enough, I've seen too many theories where people state things without real back-up, that's why I said that.

[Squirrelbanes]

Fair enough, I've seen too many theories where people state things without real back-up, that's why I said that.

Nws! Most ppl do post things with numbers without any backup I just happened to know that one was true...having watched it about 30 mins ago lol.
Great vid really...totally shows how unjustifiable subs are these days...

Just to add: I'm a qualified accountant...to my eternal shame :S Bad choice made 5 years ago..thankfully now I'm a writer/journalist/editor. Anyway, those numbers rly are correct

[Borzo]

I like people who put out numbers just like that.

Blizz has put out statements outlining exactly how much they spend on server fees. It's not that hard to find. Other MMO makers also put out these number as well, in their public earnings statements.

Actually server maintenance + bandwidth costs are - as the poster correctly stated - approximately $2/month, per person.

[Jovanaar]

Blizz has put out statements outlining exactly how much they spend on server fees. It's not that hard to find. Other MMO makers also put out these number as well, in their public earnings statements.

Actually server maintenance + bandwidth costs are - as the poster correctly stated - approximately $2/month, per person.

Well I think I clarified why I said it though, nothing against the guy. But many people just put out stuff just like that.

[Dalco]

Try DCUO it's one of the least troll ridden games I've ever played. Villain PvE and I don't see any sort of trolling.
Edit: DCUO is f2p
Edit 2: Forgot who I tried to quote >_>

[Borzo]

Well I think I clarified why I said it though, nothing against the guy. But many people just put out stuff just like that.

Oh I understand. I just started typing before the other posts showed up.

In general, don't trust numbers unless you can verify where they come from - I agree.


Also, in general, the argument defending companies like Blizzard isn't so much (anymore) that the $15/month is for bandwidth/maintenance/servers, but that it's for content. But I think the video does a good job addressing that as well. Do we get THREE expansions worth of content over a 12 month period, released as patches?

I think the $15/month thing is a tough sell... but in WOW's case, people pay for it, and even try to justify to themselves why it's a good thing (no kids, more content, etc). I mean, if I was Blizz - why WOULDN'T I take their money? I'd use all that cash to make SC2, D3, Titan, etc. It's a cow... milk it for all you can, IMHO.

[nalle]

Oh I understand. I just started typing before the other posts showed up.

In general, don't trust numbers unless you can verify where they come from - I agree.


Also, in general, the argument defending companies like Blizzard isn't so much (anymore) that the $15/month is for bandwidth/maintenance/servers, but that it's for content. But I think the video does a good job addressing that as well. Do we get THREE expansions worth of content over a 12 month period, released as patches?

I think the $15/month thing is a tough sell... but in WOW's case, people pay for it, and even try to justify to themselves why it's a good thing (no kids, more content, etc). I mean, if I was Blizz - why WOULDN'T I take their money? I'd use all that cash to make SC2, D3, Titan, etc. It's a cow... milk it for all you can, IMHO.

Indeed, why wouldn't they? If people are willing to pay for it.


WoW will most likely always have the same subscription fee as it has now (to some extent), but if GW2 is as good as we hope future MMOs might have to go down the same path to compete with it.

[Borzo]

WoW will most likely always have the same subscription fee as it has now (to some extent), but if GW2 is as good as we hope future MMOs might have to go down the same path to compete with it.

This.

If GW2 is honestly good, and turns a sizeable profit... companies will have a very, very difficult time releasing new MMORPGs that are sub-based. It might spell the end of new sub games. I'm sure WOW will remain sub-based for as long as people are willing to pay, but for new and upcoming games, this will probably be completely un-feasable.

[Durzlla]

Every gaming forum these days is horrible and filled with idiots and trolls - don't think that GW2 would be any different, in GW the community was just as bad as in every other game mainly due to elitists and PvP'ers.

Yes I know this, I play GW and have had many encounters with elitists in PVp (they tend to live in the RA que for some reason). I didn't say GW2 would be perfect or that GW1 was I simply said their community was better then wows, which many people would likely agree with.

[Deleted]

Its pretty much the same income as a Sub model.

Sub- you pay $15month for 6months- get one patch
B2P- you pay $60-$90 for an expac every 6months.

The benefit to me would be - say WoW was B2P (standard disclaimer - nothing against WoW, played it for years, just not my thing anymore)...when they released an xpac that was just raid and dailies, I would have had the option to skip...rather than already paying for it and then realising I wasn't that interested.

[Deleted]

Just the fact that you could skip the expansion gives Arenanet a great incentive. Some people seem to think that the P2P model means great patches, but in reality the P2P model makes (in time) developers lazy. As long as no subscribers are lost then it doesn't matter if the patch is 'meh' to say at least. If you add up all the months of paying fees, was it worth it? For instance, was ICC (11 months) worth $165? You could buy several other games and/or expansions for that money.

Its pretty much the same income as a Sub model.

Sub- you pay $15month for 6months- get one patch
B2P- you pay $60-$90 for an expac every 6months.

Your numbers seem a little bit off mate.. I expect expansions to be around $40 again at release. And these expansion will offer much more than a plain patch. (GW1 expansions offered new classes, content, new stuff for old classes etc.)
You also seem to forget that WoW also had a $40 expansions as soon as the 'patch' got a little big.

[omlech]

Just the fact that you could skip the expansion gives Arenanet a great incentive. Some people seem to think that the P2P model means great patches, but in reality the P2P model makes (in time) developers lazy. As long as no subscribers are lost then it doesn't matter if the patch is 'meh' to say at least. If you add up all the months of paying fees, was it worth it? For instance, was ICC (11 months) worth $165? You could buy several other games and/or expansions for that money.



Your numbers seem a little bit off mate.. I expect expansions to be around $40 again at release. And these expansion will offer much more than a plain patch. (GW1 expansions offered new classes, content, new stuff for old classes etc.)
You also seem to forget that WoW also had a $40 expansions as soon as the 'patch' got a little big.

This is very true. Blizzard has become lazy and complacent with their patches, no reason to put out content quickly nor quality content because hey they're still going to get monthly subs at a constant rate. ANet MUST release quality patches and expansions because if they don't people won't buy the expansions and there goes their income. B2P is a better model for the player because it allows us to only pay for what we deem worthwhile, where as with P2P you're paying month after month for no content at all or content you don't even care about.

[Cuchulainn]

I remember when WotLK came out. By then I knew that paying for a sub was a load of garbage, but I kept paying for it to be with my friends and family in-game. Besides, if I quit, then they would have hounded me. I can't even begin to explain how HARD it was to finally quit WoW. I had to completely let go of my highly prestigious RP guild, I had to tell my family abroad that I can only talk with them on FB now, and I had to explain to ALL OF THEM why it wasn't worth my 15 bucks anymore and why GW2 is going to be better. Even to this day I get told to come back to WoW and I've been gone for 5 months now.

The fact is, it's just not justifications that keep people playing, it's not just the fun, it's family and friends too. If those two aspects were gone, then no one pay for a sub for any MMO unless they found the game to be extremely enjoyable while playing with random people. Well, with the LFD/LFR tool and the community going to shit, WoW is beginning to get that way, and that's one of the reasons why people are leaving.

Lose touch with your community.
Lose the will to pump out meaningful and interesting content.
Lose subs.

Otherwise, read my signature.

[rabbimojo]

Just the fact that you could skip the expansion gives Arenanet a great incentive. Some people seem to think that the P2P model means great patches, but in reality the P2P model makes (in time) developers lazy. As long as no subscribers are lost then it doesn't matter if the patch is 'meh' to say at least. If you add up all the months of paying fees, was it worth it? For instance, was ICC (11 months) worth $165? You could buy several other games and/or expansions for that money.[...]

Which raises an interesting consideration as well: Do we actually get a better game by driving profits by that sort of short-term "Whoa!" factor?

We might.

We might also not. I'd like to point to the sort of misguided efforts many corporations (at least in the US) have adopted on account of the quarterly profits mindset.

E.g.? Had a friend's company announce mandatory 1-week Q1 vacation time for all employees. Reason being that they'd then have to keep less cash on hand to cover the vacation time, so though they'd lose a week of productivity, for this quarter they'd have more capital. Thus, less need to borrow. Thus thus, better revenue:expense ratio. Thus thus thus, appearance of higher profitability. (Reason why it's important to look more profitable this quarter is unknown to me.)

Is that ideal long-term behavior?

Short-term focus means that you can't make hard decisions as easily. I.e., if Blizz had to sell Cataclysm to people without a sub model, they might be trying to convince people who hadn't been around for months that the game was still going in the right direction. Would that whole controversial healing model change have happened?

Whether you think it was for the best or not, point is, could the company even take steps like that if they had to optimally justify every expansion to every customer in order to stay in business? I.e.: If you only buy an expac every 6 months or so, you critique each purchase a lot more than if you just have a monthly expense.

Who knows.