Curse

Fril Estelin · Dec 19, 2007, 03:04 PM // 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I played which account had the character I wanted to spend time with. That's why I was a little pissed when they made it so you could buy expansion slots, I could've saved some moolah.

I'm still a little confused with the point of that statement, though.

Basically, I was trying to say that the two total amounts of money should be normalised to the amount of time played. It doesn't change the price you pay, but it changes the cost per hour for you, if that is important. (one would even have to subjectively quantify the amount of "fun" had, but that's difficult to discuss)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Nonetheless, it's the quality of the game that's going to keep most addicted. Look at Halo 3.

Yep, whatever the business model, the quality plays a huge part (which is the reason why the question "to p2p or not p2p?" is inappropriate when considered alone). And that can be graphics, rythm of various play mechanics, storyline/immersiveness/universe-consistency, pvp/co-op challenge, personal achievement, grinding/l33tness/title-hungry, shiny weapon/armor/special effects, and so on.

Anyone defending GW p2p is (possibly without realising it) signing a death warrant on GW and Anet. Nevertheless, GW2 will introduce new elements to the business model, but that is left to speculation.

Mordakai · Dec 19, 2007, 03:36 PM // 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Yeah, true (I guess you speak for your experience on that and I don't doubt it's true). But it could also be the addiction, since you played hard because you paid a lot. Or the feeling that leaving the game would be like wasting all the money you invested (which in your case is apparently the same as the amount invested in GW, but you had 2 accounts for Prophecies in the later and I'm still wondering if you played the 2 games the same amount of time). It's exactly like saying "if people are getting drunk, alcohol companies must be doing something right" or "if people get lung cancer, cigarette companies must be doing something right".

I'm against Play to pay structures as well, but I won't go a far as saying they are as evil as cigarette companies.

WoW, by itself, won't kill you. If you lose your job, your family, and your friends... well, then that's a problem (as with any addiction).

I don't think pay to play is any more addictive than any other video game, and actually, the cost involved might get people more motivated to quit. Then again, the "investment" theory might play a part as well.

I would be interesting to research the psychological effects of Pay-to-play. I definately think people generally have the misconception that higher costs = higher quality. So that's a factor as well.

Fril Estelin · Dec 19, 2007, 04:19 PM // 16:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

I don't think pay to play is any more addictive than any other video game, and actually, the cost involved might get people more motivated to quit.

I would argue the contrary: quitting in GW is only related to one purchase, while quitting in WoW (well, it seems to me, I've never played WoW but read people who did) has the weight of months of fees paid. With GW, you "feel" more free and less "weight" attached to your account (as I said before, there's clearly an emotional weight, but most of the time we get over it, though it's not always easy).

It seems to me to be the same "tactics" used by mobile phone operators (I've never paid a contract and am only using Pay as you go; furthermore I've been working with people involved in big phone companies and it seems to be a case of "addiction" but not one that fits the medical criterion, fortunately for them) or broadband providers. Funnily, these business models would have been massively rejected years ago, but the current generation made them possible. I know for example that purchase of ringtones and shiny features is one of the cornerstone of mobile operators business models, which is indeed a very silly thing ("look how cool my ringtone is" ... it's only a ringtone guys!)

This is clearly not a matter of life and death! But indeed that's also why it's becoming more and more acceptable. I know that people in the business of SaaS (Software as a Service) are waiting for this to make you pay monthly your M$ Office. And until micropayments becomes the norm, we will very likely loose money on this deal.

CHannum · Dec 19, 2007, 05:07 PM // 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordaki

I don't think pay to play is any more addictive than any other video game, and actually, the cost involved might get people more motivated to quit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

I would argue the contrary: quitting in GW is only related to one purchase, while quitting in WoW (well, it seems to me, I've never played WoW but read people who did) has the weight of months of fees paid.

It's both. I played quite a bit of WoW in its first year. You hit a point where it's not the same game you started with - guys you were playing with in the "good old days" have moved on to other things, there's less soloable PvE content, more "elite" and less fun stuff you have to do "get ahead" - in short, more grind, more time, less return of fun. You're faced with either needing to really commit to the game, find an endgame Guild, or twiddle your thumbs doing whatever you can to have fun even though there's not as much of that as there once was. Yet, you just can't bring yourself to cancel the renewal on your account; after all, you do have months of time invested and a not insignificant amount of money "invested" and as I mentioned earlier, it's an all or nothing proposal, once you stop paying, you can't so much as load up a town and spend a few minutes dancing by the post box. So you keep letting the drain of money occur...

But, there is a wall, or at least there was for me. It's like in poker, if you're smart, you realise there's nothing stupider than throwing more money in a pot you're almost certainly not going to win just because you're "invested" in it, so you do finally quit. The game reaches a point where no matter how much money you have spent on it, you won't actually be getting $15 worth of fun out of it this month, so you cut your losses.

And, even if you refuse to play the new expansion even though they mailed you a DVD with a free trial code like some fabled drug dealer, Blizzard still comes out ahead. I spent more on WoW than I ever will on GW1. Whether or not I go back for more isn't important, their business model got me to part with more money than GW for, I expect, less return. Brilliant from the perspective of making money, not so brilliant for earning long term customer goodwill. I'll be pre-ordering GW2 (and probably the CE), I won't be touching WoW again.

Bryant Again · Dec 19, 2007, 05:34 PM // 17:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Basically, I was trying to say that the two total amounts of money should be normalised to the amount of time played. It doesn't change the price you pay, but it changes the cost per hour for you, if that is important.

I'd consider it the same account because in order for me to more fully experience the game, without deleting a character I invested time in, I had to purchase another account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Anyone defending GW p2p is (possibly without realising it) signing a death warrant on GW and Anet. Nevertheless, GW2 will introduce new elements to the business model, but that is left to speculation.

My point isn't saying that "GW is P2P," but that non-p2p games can be just as addictive and expensive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

With GW, you "feel" more free and less "weight" attached to your account

Dunno about you, but I'd feel pretty bummed if my $200+ account got hacked to bajeesus.

Paddywhack · Dec 19, 2007, 05:45 PM // 17:45

I guess I don't understand the debate in this thread. I'm a fairly new GW player, but isn't their business model the same as the one most PC game makers have used in the past?

Sell a core game. If it does well, sell an expansion. The expansion makes money based on the idea that although there will be less buyers, the resources needed to make the expansion should be much less than the core experience.

As a customer, if you didn't like the core game, you would show that by not buying the expansion.

The only difference here is that ANet makes more "expansions" and they can each be considered stand-alone titles with the exception of GWEN.

Fril Estelin · Dec 20, 2007, 11:39 AM // 11:39

I think this discussion failed to mention an important point regarding a business model (Bmodel for short), from a holistic point of view (i.e., not looking at the money only):

while p2p proposes a rather "negative" Bmodel, not in the sense that money is bad but rather that it's a weapon on the user side (collateral dammage FTL), Anet proposes with GW a positive Bmodel where this "weapon" (punishment) is not available in an immediate sense (it's rather the contrary: they're obliged to improve over a longer period of time, rather than improve on "smalller points" each months) and they rather offer a "Community relation" via special relations to fansites and CR people like Gaile and Andrew. And we have several updates a month, we don't have to wait for a "GW v2.3".

The downside is that Anet's tradeoff means that "smaller points" can sometimes end up at the bottom of the todo list, in particular when a very vocal minority (GWG is small inside the GW population and these people are few on GWG) will give lengthy arguments about this graphical glitch or that quest bug. According to Gaile's comment that sales are ok, it seems that the GW population is very happy with this Bmodel. Some people will unfortunately quit because of a few cockups (I can imagine that being banned wrongfully and not having access to your account for a few days is annoying, but well it's not the end of the world when you don't pay for these few days)

Redfeather1975 · Dec 20, 2007, 11:58 AM // 11:58

In p2p games, forums get a magical +100 in whining and 'I quit' threads bonus.

Mordakai · Dec 20, 2007, 09:48 PM // 21:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paddywhack

I guess I don't understand the debate in this thread. I'm a fairly new GW player, but isn't their business model the same as the one most PC game makers have used in the past?

Exactly. Anet simply took the tried and true standard video game business strategy and applied it to a MMORPG (albeit, with the not-realized potential of two $50 Chapters a year).

I'd argue that play-to-play models are the radical ones, and that as more free to play MMORPGS enter the market, their days are numbered.

But that won't change the fact that WoW is making Blizzard billions of dollars. (anyone have Blizzards net worth or any profit figures?)

Bryant Again · Dec 20, 2007, 10:04 PM // 22:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

I'd argue that play-to-play models are the radical ones, and that as more free to play MMORPGS enter the market, their days are numbered.

Problem is that nearly every single one of those games that are similar to GW in terms of payment have sucked terribly. It's giving some pretty bad rep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

But that won't change the fact that WoW is making Blizzard billions of dollars. (anyone have Blizzards net worth or any profit figures?)

Well, I'm not much of a sales rep or terribly good at math, but in the billions I'd say it's over 9000 (!!!!!!!!!!!)

Buster · Dec 20, 2007, 10:05 PM // 22:05

If you consider this game to be a MMO then yes the business model is unique especially when GW2 hits the shelves. If you feel this game is simply a rpg online game then no, many other games use the f2p model.

Pay to play games offer tons more content but unfortunately they charge a monthly fee. In order to be truely unique and break the mold they need to offer the same amount of content that WOW, EQ2, Lineage2 does and make it free. Not 100% sure that can happen but I have high hopes for Anet for they are one of the best in making games.

Lady Raenef · Dec 20, 2007, 10:12 PM // 22:12

Guild Wars Prophecies- $50
Guild Wars Factions CE: - $70
Guild Wars Nightfall - $50
Guild Wars Eye of the North - $35
EotN Preorder + GOTY Bonus Items - $10
TOTAL: $215

20 Months total playing time. Still playing.

If charged $15 a month: $300
+ Game: $50
TOTAL: $350

I hear that World of Warcraft is $15 a month, and essentially, if I was paying that much, I would have spent a lot more. I still play Guild Wars. It's still on even as I type this message out.

Mordakai · Dec 20, 2007, 11:01 PM // 23:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Problem is that nearly every single one of those games that are similar to GW in terms of payment have sucked terribly. It's giving some pretty bad rep.

I'm actually surprised there aren't more like GW. There are several that make you pay for premium service, more levels, better equipment, etc.

But as far as I know, there are no MMORPGS that offer full access to the game for buying one Chapter (with the caveat that Guild Wars has 3 distinct chapters, and one expansion).

And even though you can argue that a Chapter is just "extra" content, I think there is a huge difference between buying armor and weapons for real money, then buying access to a whole slate of virtual stuff in the form of a Chapter.

In the end, we are trying to put a monetary value on pixels. In Guild Wars case, I believe the sum is worth more than the individual prices. And so far, no other company has made a "virtual" product that has impressed me enough to spend as much or to play as long as Guild Wars has (and I've been playing computer games for over 25 years now!)

CHannum · Dec 20, 2007, 11:18 PM // 23:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

Pay to play games offer tons more content but unfortunately they charge a monthly fee. In order to be truely unique and break the mold they need to offer the same amount of content that WOW..

I played WoW heavily for 9 months, I never saw all this extra game content you speak of. I saw a more polished interace, more cohesive game world, better partying mechanics, etc., but not more content. I don't know what was added with Burning Crusade, but even it doubled the game content, it still doesn't make it "tons more" than GW.

The difference is not *content*, the difference is time involved to experience the content. In GW you can run through all of the content on a cursory basis in a couple of months, tops, for all the campaigns even as a casual player and *then* if you're so inclined you can go back and do all the time consuming stuff like titles, elite skill hunting, beating all the missions with bonuses, hard mode, etc.. WoW, EQ, etc. take that time sink jibjab and make in inclusive to seeing the content in the first place. It's a way of making "finishing" the game into a much lengthier, i.e. profitable process for the game developers.

It's arguable which is the better play experience. If things like money and time weren't an issue, I'd rather still be playing WoW. Since they are, and are going to continue to be an issue, I'll take GW's model hands down. As a player, I get all the highlights of a big MMO without either the bill or the time requirement.

Bryant Again · Dec 20, 2007, 11:26 PM // 23:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

But as far as I know, there are no MMORPGS that offer full access to the game for buying one Chapter (with the caveat that Guild Wars has 3 distinct chapters, and one expansion).

The only way Guild Wars is "unique" is in that the chapters are just stand-alone expansion packs. I can't really go past that since you know I don't consider GW an MMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHannum

I played WoW heavily for 9 months, I never saw all this extra game content you speak of.

Zul'Aman, The Black Temple, Battlegrounds, Zul'Gurub, An'Qiraj, Listgoeson, TONS of shit has been added and changed since the game's release.

Buster · Dec 20, 2007, 11:38 PM // 23:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHannum

I played WoW heavily for 9 months, I never saw all this extra game content you speak of. I saw a more polished interace, more cohesive game world, better partying mechanics, etc., but not more content. I don't know what was added with Burning Crusade, but even it doubled the game content, it still doesn't make it "tons more" than GW.

The difference is not *content*, the difference is time involved to experience the content. In GW you can run through all of the content on a cursory basis in a couple of months, tops, for all the campaigns even as a casual player and *then* if you're so inclined you can go back and do all the time consuming stuff like titles, elite skill hunting, beating all the missions with bonuses, hard mode, etc.. WoW, EQ, etc. take that time sink jibjab and make in inclusive to seeing the content in the first place. It's a way of making "finishing" the game into a much lengthier, i.e. profitable process for the game developers.

It's arguable which is the better play experience. If things like money and time weren't an issue, I'd rather still be playing WoW. Since they are, and are going to continue to be an issue, I'll take GW's model hands down. As a player, I get all the highlights of a big MMO without either the bill or the time requirement.

I agree that quality is better than quantity but content is what keeps gamers playing longer and keeps them more interested in playing. There is nothing wrong with having some timesinks in the game. Perfect example was Eye of the North, I thought it was a good expansion but it was seriously way too short. People wanted more of the goodness, more things to do. As it is now you can complete any campaign in less than 3 weeks time. Then it becomes repetitive and people start to get bored and not everyone owns all 3 campaigns. People want more new areas to explore and more things to do because not everyone gets involved in the pvp aspect of Guild Wars. Level 20is way to easy to achieve and you miss out on the enjoyment of developing your character.

CHannum · Dec 21, 2007, 02:04 AM // 02:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

People want more new areas to explore and more things to do because not everyone gets involved in the pvp aspect of Guild Wars. Level 20is way to easy to achieve and you miss out on the enjoyment of developing your character.

This is getting somewhat off topic, but you seem to be mistaking content for time spent getting to said content. Artificially increasing the amount of time someone spends doing nearly the exact same things over and over again to get their food pellet does not mean you get any more food pellets in the two games. I never experienced more content, just more time spent getting at said content.

There are advantages to both models, and more content *could* be a function of the pay to play, but in my experience with MMOs, it's not. They increase the grind to move through what story there is, they throw one farming quest after another in your way. When you get to what could conceivably call the end they make you go through one tier of elite dungeons that take hours each, require large groups of people to coordinate everything, and one wipe can guarantee you won't finish, and if you do finish, only a few of the people will actually get anything worth having, so they have to turn around and do it again, and again, and again.

Take your GWEN comments, they're exactly why I think for a class of casual gamer that GW wins out in the game model. If it were WoW, for example, you'd have to max out the Norn Title Track before you could move on past the initial allies quest and they'd have a series of two or three dungeons in each of the three quest branches that required 20 man teams and four dozen runs each to move to the next one. The overall content wouldn't be different at all, they'd just make more work out of it. With GWEN, it's your call, spend a day running through just the main quests, or work on some new titles and collect some more elite armor. Basically you seem to be critiquing GW's game and sales model design specifically because it makes the time sinks purely optional to experiencing the monsters, the dungeons, the scenery, the heros, the storylines, etc. and praising game design that doesn't serve up any more actual content and winds up locking out whole reams of players from ever seeing more than a subset of what's there due to the time required to get to much of. For some players, sure, I can see the appeal of knowing you'll either have to work your butt off or never see a tier 8 Graznar's Orb of Death and Resurrection that only drops once out of a hundred runs of the toughest dungeon in all the land, but for others, it's just a game they play when they're done getting the kids in bed and they've got to be up at 6AM to get to work again.

If you don't like the GW game design philosophy, there's plenty of games out there that are plenty happy to take your money and your time. Personally, I'm really glad I found something that lets me get my game fix without the unnecessary hurdles to play.

Bryant Again · Dec 21, 2007, 04:02 AM // 04:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHannum

...and one wipe can guarantee you won't finish...

Just gonna say that bit there is wrong. Aside from that, most of what you say of WoW is a bit of an exaggeration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHannum

Personally, I'm really glad I found something that lets me get my game fix without the unnecessary hurdles to play.

I've known thousands of games like that (then again, I guess we all have different fixes). Are you saying that you've finally found an MMO without all the hurdles, grinds, etc.?

Redfeather1975 · Dec 21, 2007, 04:44 AM // 04:44

Did you say over 9000 bryant?!

Why is that so popular?
That show was silly. Half of it was people assuming the bad guy was dead during the 5 minute explosion cloud settling, only to see him standing unscratched after it cleared.
Then everyone would shake and their pupils would vibrate and they'd go 'uhh...uhhhh.uhhh' in disbelief of his power for another five minutes.
Then, 10 episodes later when they actually finished fighting, they meet another dude whose 10 times stronger.

Silly.

Bryant Again · Dec 21, 2007, 04:54 AM // 04:54

I have noooo idea.

Nonetheless, I laughed at about half-way in when it was classical style.