[Vile Samael]

reddyxm, on Dec 20, 2012 - 1:03 PM, said:

Gym membership = P2P
Buying your own all-in-one gym equipment (ex. Bowflex) = B2P

Gym membership = swimming pool, basketball court, occasional new gym equipment, smoothie bar, sauna, maintenance, personal trainer, nice views of hot person of the other sex, social interaction, etc
At home gym equipment = boring, stop using after couple weeks, takes up large amount of space, if it breaks you have to wait for replacement parts and fix yourself or you're shit out of luck, by your lonesome self, etc

That's a terrible metaphor.

[Kitsune]

reddyxm, on Dec 20, 2012 - 1:03 PM, said:

Gym membership = P2P
Buying your own all-in-one gym equipment (ex. Bowflex) = B2P

Gym membership = swimming pool, basketball court, occasional new gym equipment, smoothie bar, sauna, maintenance, personal trainer, nice views of hot person of the other sex, social interaction, etc
At home gym equipment = boring, stop using after couple weeks, takes up large amount of space, if it breaks you have to wait for replacement parts and fix yourself or you're shit out of luck, by your lonesome self, etc

...Interesting analogy. You make b2p sound like crap, but it's really not all that bad.

[Surgam]

I think most of us are smart enough to realize that BnS going B2P is as likely to happen as the world ending tomorrow. Game developers spend a lot of time and resources making their products, so one would think they'd like to be not only properly compensated for their work but to make profits on top. Logically, a P2P model would generate more revenue in the long term compared to B2P.

Besides, some have already mentioned this: Korean BnS is already using a P2P model (about $20 US/per month). It also seems to be doing well enough that they 're not changing their plans to localize the game for other regions.

On that note, just hurry up and take my money...

[foxlight713]

Surgam, on Dec 20, 2012 - 7:31 PM, said:

I think most of us are smart enough to realize that BnS going B2P is as likely to happen as the world ending tomorrow. Game developers spend a lot of time and resources making their products, so one would think they'd like to be not only properly compensated for their work but to make profits on top. Logically, a P2P model would generate more revenue in the long term compared to B2P.

True but look at some of the MMO's that have come out some what recently in the states. Champions online started out as p2p but eventually when f2p, DC universe online is free to play with a p2p option that dose not hinder the play expirice in any way as far as I know, and the most recent example is Star wars knights of the old republic that recently went free to play, Aion is now free to play. Terra might be able to go on as a p2p game and I don't think World of Warcraft is going anywhere being the giant that it is. P2P is certainly the better option service wise however with some of the changes some mmo's have made they might want to look into other payment options.

I however would not be phased one bit if BnS was a p2p and I would still play it every now and then.

This post has been edited by foxlight713: Dec 22, 2012 - 5:32 AM

[TheColdlight]

Alright, to the person who took my name. Screw you. Back to the conversation, figured I'd make an account on here since I and the guild(Sunless) I play with will be playing B&S. Most of you know Luci >.> Alright to the conversation at hand! I've worked with a few game developers on a game before. I was doing QA for awhile and met a lot of very talented people a few of them went to GDC(Game Developers Conference) what came up a few times and was discussed by a TON of big name and small name companies/developers was the trending subscription based models. I'm not going to go into great detail, but Notturo was mostly right in what was said.

The most successful current model(if if it gets the right amount of subscriptions) is P2P, there is a problem with that though. You need so many subscriptions for the game to remain and stay to pay for itself. The problem currently with P2P is that if no one stays with the game or after say a few months people cancel there subscription the game just doesn't pay for itself.

B2P is very successful currently reason being people don't mind paying out 60 for a game and then having a cash shop. Cash shops are actually very, very successful. If the game is successful a cash shop can pay what the subscription base does and then some over.

IMO I'd much just rather have a B2P, but doesn't always happen.

[foxlight713]

TheColdlight, on Dec 23, 2012 - 9:56 AM, said:

The most successful current model(if if it gets the right amount of subscriptions) is P2P, there is a problem with that though. You need so many subscriptions for the game to remain and stay to pay for itself. The problem currently with P2P is that if no one stays with the game or after say a few months people cancel there subscription the game just doesn't pay for itself.

Yup that's pretty much the kicker right there for P2P.