HAHAHAHA the "Graph" is put out by NewZoo ..... how funny.
One other opinion and I will stop. Any time a group of say 10 fairly intelligent people are presented with a "graphic" display and there are 10 different interpetations of what the numbers are .... and nobody agrees on what the number mean, then one of 2 things happened. One; The producer of the documwent wants to mislead as many people as he can. or two; The producer of the document has not a clue what the numbers are or what they mean. Just my opinion.
Originally posted by Superman0X I am a bit familiar with some of this data, and can say that it appears to be pretty accurate.
If you get the full report, it will show the CHANGES in the market year over year, so it is possible to see how the demographics have shifted.
What is NOT shown in this study, is the changes in the ASIAN market... there are demographic changes there as well... as the different markets actually start shifting TOWARDS each other, and the larger differences start to vanish.
What Richard stated, and many of you did not fully understand, is that THIS is the information that developers (and publishers) are using to make their decisions. Based on this, they will be bringing games to market, to meet the demands as shown... because that is how they will best make money. This creates a sort of self profilling prophecy... They see the market shift, they shift their development... and in doing so support (push) the market shift. This results in a bit of a pendulm effect in the market, that takes a few swings to reach equilibrium.
Exactly.
It doesn't matter what we the Players think about this data.
The only thing that matters is what the Investors / Publishers think about this date... what they see when the read this report. Since Investors and Publishers are seldom Players of MMOGs, they will by default see something other than we do...
And future MMOGs will be developed according to that view, whether it is appealing to us or not.
Perhaps the pendulum will shift back someday and MMOGs will once again be designed for customers like the Players that have been MMOGamers for years and are most upset about the recent market shifts. For that to happen though I believe a study would have to be done with by us the Players ourselves if we ever hope to see Investors and Publishers encouraged to focus on quality full featured pay to play MMORPGs again. It would also help if we could finally decide on an "official" definition of a MMORPG and a MMOG. That may be more difficult than anything else as we the Players after all these years still haven't decided on that issue. Maybe it's time we did.
Until then the love of profit will ensure that MMOGs will continue to change in a direction that most of us will eventually have a disagreement with (even if we do not disagree with the current trend right now).
I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!" ............... "I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. " __Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__ ...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...
I am a bit familiar with some of this data, and can say that it appears to be pretty accurate.
If you get the full report, it will show the CHANGES in the market year over year, so it is possible to see how the demographics have shifted.
What is NOT shown in this study, is the changes in the ASIAN market... there are demographic changes there as well... as the different markets actually start shifting TOWARDS each other, and the larger differences start to vanish.
What Richard stated, and many of you did not fully understand, is that THIS is the information that developers (and publishers) are using to make their decisions. Based on this, they will be bringing games to market, to meet the demands as shown... because that is how they will best make money. This creates a sort of self profilling prophecy... They see the market shift, they shift their development... and in doing so support (push) the market shift. This results in a bit of a pendulm effect in the market, that takes a few swings to reach equilibrium.
Any developer using that study is going to be on the bottom looking up. Anyone with any intelligence would recognize that report as a highly skewed numbers favoring the f2p market, when in actuality the money is still in the p2p games. I will bet that Lotro and DDO are both making far more from p2p revenue than f2p.
Like I said before, the f2p market does not release active accounts nor revenues, so how are you going to get accurate numbers for a study like this? That is right, they aren't.
Is it really so shocking to see those numbers the way they are? I don't think so.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
I am a bit familiar with some of this data, and can say that it appears to be pretty accurate.
If you get the full report, it will show the CHANGES in the market year over year, so it is possible to see how the demographics have shifted.
What is NOT shown in this study, is the changes in the ASIAN market... there are demographic changes there as well... as the different markets actually start shifting TOWARDS each other, and the larger differences start to vanish.
What Richard stated, and many of you did not fully understand, is that THIS is the information that developers (and publishers) are using to make their decisions. Based on this, they will be bringing games to market, to meet the demands as shown... because that is how they will best make money. This creates a sort of self profilling prophecy... They see the market shift, they shift their development... and in doing so support (push) the market shift. This results in a bit of a pendulm effect in the market, that takes a few swings to reach equilibrium.
Any developer using that study is going to be on the bottom looking up. Anyone with any intelligence would recognize that report as a highly skewed numbers favoring the f2p market, when in actuality the money is still in the p2p games. I will bet that Lotro and DDO are both making far more from p2p revenue than f2p.
Like I said before, the f2p market does not release active accounts nor revenues, so how are you going to get accurate numbers for a study like this? That is right, they aren't.
I hate to break it to you, but the figures in this report, while not exact by any means, are pretty fair estimates. In their current forms, F2P games are not going to make nearly what a standard $15 per month P2P game will make. It is clear, however, that there is a much wider audience playing casual browser-based games, and that F2P models are on the rise, and attracting new players.
Anyone with any antelligence would recognize that there are far more players on casual games like Mafia Wars than MMO's like EVE. While Mafia Wars will never make the money per-player that EVE makes, they are still highly profitable because of the sheer number of players, the ad revenue the game brings in, and low overhead costs of running the game.
I do not play any F2P or browser-based games, I find games like Farmville tedius and unenjoyable. I am not opposed to F2P or "freemium" models, but I will not play any of these games that sell potions or other items that affect gameplay. I have no doubt that eventually, a company will find the "perfect balance" of a F2P/freemium model that will change how successful MMO's make their profits.
I think that if you look at these figuresobjectively, you'll see that P2P MMO's still bring in far more money, but this is not a trend that will last forever. There is clearly a ceiling on the number of $15 monthly subscription gamers, but there's also a larger, as-yet undetermined pool of players that can be tapped into using a model that is less intrusive to their wallets.
Originally posted by Emhster I'd be curious to see the list of videogames accounted in this study. To me, browser games cannot be compared to client games. It's like comparing TV and radio in the same study. I can listen to the radio at work, in my car, or even while shopping at the convenient store. But I cannot watch TV at work or while driving. Are browser games even discussed in this website? What about B2P? Are they considered in this study? Even non-rpg B2P? Are MW2, CoD:BO, CS or TF considered MMOG? Should B2P be considered P2P or F2P, since they omit this category? Browser games alone probably skew their study. Are there any considerable P2P browser games out there? They shouldn't mix both browser and standalone games in the F2P vs P2P headcount.
Good questions but there is another valid point of view.
There are many differences between browser and client based games, however payment model and development platform are decisions made mostly on available resources, production costs and potential revenue - something that isn't a subject of this research.
The subject here is customer needs and what market preference is. That means, client and browser games will try to get something from the both worlds. Client based games will lean more towards casual play of browser games and browser games will get 3D graphics engines and more complex game play. I would say you can already notice those trends and that is exactly what the interest of the investor, developer or publisher in this research is.
the whole f2p/p2p discussion is far more complicated than it might seams because beside the economical point of view you also have the social and culture part.
in my opinion we have 3 diffrent kinds of f2p client based mmog out there. first the c-grade ones, the typical so called asian grinder games, all are very similiar to each other in gameplay and gamedepth. second the b-garde ones, orginal designed as f2p counterparts of the big triple a p2p games, with much more content and gamedepth than the c-garde ones. examples are runes of magic and atlantica online which are making more money in a month than most p2p games, if my numbers are correct. and third we have the a-grade f2p games, original designed as p2p games, these one have the advantage to have better graphics, great gameplay, huge content and gamedepth in comparison to the b- and c-grade ones.
atm old c- and b-grade f2p games are flooding the western mmog market. spontaneously i can name 4 games designed in asia older than 3-5 years which are currently be translated into german or are in beta phase ready to launch for the german market. they all want a piece of the big cake. but honestly, who wants to play these colourless 'asia-grinders' when you can have eqII, lotro, dnd or co for free? i guess not so many people and i bet turbine, soe, cryptic had the same thoughts. so the f2p market will change. the chance to make money for c-garde f2p games on the western market will fall to almost zero. the b-grade ones still do have a good chance to earn their money if they provide something unique the a-grades don't have (like atlantica and the combat system).
a possible scenario for the future could be that a triple a game will be launched right from the start in 2 versions and 2 diffrent kind of servers. f2p on a f2p only server and p2p on p2p only servers with the chance of accounttransfer in both directions. well, thats what i would do ....
now a quick look at the social part of the f2p discussion. as before i also would like to divide this into categories. first we have the browser games, which are played mostly during work (at least my own research with over 5000 interviewees so far tells me that 83% of all browser games user playing during work and 49% of them during work only). second we have the f2p only players. in this category its very hard to say which group does have the majority. kids between 12 and 18, students and unemployees have s strong appearance but also interesting is that f2p does have a lot of first-time-mmog-users above the age of 40. and third we have the i-only-pay-for-one-p2p-game category. for example: 69% of all wow-players are also playing a f2p game and investing an equal amount of time in it. 35% of them are using the cash shops. a big part in this third category is the group dynamic within a guild/clan. people forged together over years still want to play together in the future. some of them stuck in the old games, some want to try something else, but they don't want to be divided.
The results are definitely skewed, think of all those Facebook games it will include. But, regardless of 99% of what Richard wrote, I think its important to remember that he does also state that none of this means that subscription MMOs are on the decline.
Subscription MMOs are here to stay, the market as a whole is just branching out into new areas. I think with SWTOR, Rift and TERA next year we'll see a massive boost to subscription revenue across the market.
Though I do find it sad how many people refuse to accept that F2P games are a serious part of the business now.
Currently there are F2P, B2P and P2P games. And the F2P do have gotten more shares of the market lately but that does not mean that P2P will continue to loose shares in the future, it is possible but it can also be a trend that turns anytime.
And B2P is barely having any shares at all right now but once GW2 releases it is not impossible that it start taking a lot of market shares, if a game that is really successful (which we of course have no way knowing if GW 2 actually will be) have a certain model that model tend to be a lot more popular among other devs.
But I don't really see the point, we will continue to pay for our games. If it will be in an item shop, a monthly fees or even by being showed adds instead does not really matters that much.
What do upset me a bit and what might be the reason F2P actually gains market so fast today is the fact that many games keep their monthly fees but still add the F2P games item shops. Greed makes them both try to eat the cake and keep it, and it is very possible that it is one of the main reasons F2P games have past P2P games and continue to do so fast.
It is clear that most P2P games should consider how they can get bigger shares of the market, and changing model is not the right way to do that but they will have to offer a superior service and many are just not doing that.
Some of you have discounted the data... but if you look around, you will see similar data from multiple other studies... so it is unlikely that they are all wrong.
For anecdotal data, just check out the news stories for the past two years. Two years ago facebook/FarmVille was the big new story, and it has not gone away. Sure there are other hits now, and the market is maturing with DDO/LOTRO and EQ2 all F2P now. The news is all over, and these results show not what will happen, but what has already happened...
Because of the increased competition, there are changes in the games coming to the market. It used to be that a game would launch in its primary market (where the developers are) and then in 3-5 years (if it did well) it would be ported to new markets. There are comments made about Asian games that are that old being ported to Germany... and this is a classic example. However, they are now competing with both P2P games that have gone F2P, and games that are launching in multiple markets simultaneously (or with less than 1 year delay). These games missed their window, as the market changed.
The bottom line is that the business has changed... and that is what it is, a business. The people involved (Developers, Publishers, Investors) are all seeing this (type) of data, and are reacting to it... because if they dont, they will cease to exist. Sure, the people here can badmouth, and belittle other gamers that dont play 'their' games... but a company can not afford to do that to its customers.... not if they want to stay in business.
Good questions but there is another valid point of view.
There are many differences between browser and client based games, however payment model and development platform are decisions made mostly on available resources, production costs and potential revenue - something that isn't a subject of this research.
The subject here is customer needs and what market preference is. That means, client and browser games will try to get something from the both worlds. Client based games will lean more towards casual play of browser games and browser games will get 3D graphics engines and more complex game play. I would say you can already notice those trends and that is exactly what the interest of the investor, developer or publisher in this research is.
I understand, and I somewhat agree with your point of view on casual games. Though this research doesn't seem to mention anything about casual games. Unless you assume casual gamers don't want to spend money on a subscription. While it may be valid, it is still an assumption.
3D engine have been existing for browser games for a while. The first one I've played was in 2000 with the Shockwave plugin. Such technology is, however, very limited to the browser's capacity and will never catch up on standalone clients.
However in this case, we're mixing browser and standalone games together under a 'F2P' label, and then pulls the conclusion that 75 to 80% of MMOG gamers only use the F2P model. This is wrong. This study is, in my opinion, written to mislead investors.
Base on fact, they had already this post but my opinion seem the same , people won't pay for a game when they have the same game F2P ? agree with the fact that P2P have more things and have better graphics but the principe is the same has F2P
Originally posted by Emhster However in this case, we're mixing browser and standalone games together under a 'F2P' label, and then pulls the conclusion that 75 to 80% of MMOG gamers only use the F2P model. This is wrong. This study is, in my opinion, written to mislead investors.
You got a wrong perception and missing the point.
This isn't an analysis of online gaming industry, this is the research of what players, the customers liking are thus mixed graph is indeed at place because it describes people behavior and habits.
One always has to take Market Research with a grain of salt, especialy when one does not have access to the methodolgies used. The other thing to remember is that usualy when an organization makes some of it's research figures public...it does so in order to forward a specific agenda.... and it IS quite possible to skew polls in such a manner as to show the exact results want reflected. Not saying that neccesarly is the case with this poll..... Just saying one has to be really carefull about taking pretty much any poll at face value without having alot of information about how it was conducted and tabulated.
However in this case, we're mixing browser and standalone games together under a 'F2P' label, and then pulls the conclusion that 75 to 80% of MMOG gamers only use the F2P model. This is wrong. This study is, in my opinion, written to mislead investors.
You got a wrong perception and missing the point.
This isn't an analysis of online gaming industry, this is the research of what players, the customers liking are thus mixed graph is indeed at place because it describes people behavior and habits.
With all due respect Gdemami, I consider a research on the playerbase is an analysis of the online gaming industry. It's a gathering of the point of view of its customers. Therefore, I believe my perception belongs to the scope of this article.
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say?
However in this case, we're mixing browser and standalone games together under a 'F2P' label, and then pulls the conclusion that 75 to 80% of MMOG gamers only use the F2P model. This is wrong. This study is, in my opinion, written to mislead investors.
You got a wrong perception and missing the point.
This isn't an analysis of online gaming industry, this is the research of what players, the customers liking are thus mixed graph is indeed at place because it describes people behavior and habits.
With all due respect Gdemami, I consider a research on the playerbase is an analysis of the online gaming industry. It's a gathering of the point of view of its customers. Therefore, I believe my perception belongs to the scope of this article.
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say?
There is a difference between how players percieve games, and developers percieve them.
Let me give several good examples:
BattleStar Galactica
Tiger Woods PGA Online
These games are drastically different from a player persective, and would not seem to have much in common. However, to a developer they have a lot in common, as they feature similar technologies.
The data presented is based on the CONSUMER point of view, not the developer view. To the consumer browser/client is not the same issue as it is to a developer. The consumer is looking for the type of game that they like to play, and the content that they enjoy. They are not concerned about the technology used to create or run it.
The data provided gives a good insight to what consumers are currently using, and they ways that they are choosing to pay for it. This has no effect on what content the developer is making, but does have an effect on how they present that content.
Originally posted by Emhster With all due respect Gdemami, I consider a research on the playerbase is an analysis of the online gaming industry. It's a gathering of the point of view of its customers. Therefore, I believe my perception belongs to the scope of this article. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say?
If you make a research of the industry, you inquire game developers and publishers. If you make a research of the customer habits, you inquire customers.
Two different subject, two different type of research. You could say that one is a research about incentives and the other is about the response to that incentive.
Why are people throwing such a fit that F2P is more popular than P2P?
If you look at any other market than the US F2P is pretty much all you get because its a better option. It gives the ability for people to try the game and then decide if they want to invest their money in it.
How many of you have been burned by a P2P where you pre-ordered or bought a 40-60$ box to play for the free month and go "wow this game sucks, I am an idiot"
F2P gets rid of that barrier for people who dont want to drop money on a game that they may hate.
Originally posted by Superman0X The data presented is based on the CONSUMER point of view, not the developer view.
Pretty much this. The data for industry research would be vastly different, it would be about money mostly. How much companies with certain specifics make, what they produce, human resources, costs, expenses, revenues, etc.
On the other hand, this research is about desires and customer behavior. It gives an insight how people spent their time and money on online gaming.
I stand corrected on the definition. My opinion didn't change though. Even if you look at a player's perspective, browser games shouldn't be included in 'F2P' when we're comparing MMOG. Especially when you're trying to draw a conclusion between F2P and P2P. It's nice to have numbers on browser games, but its usage is different than PC or console games.
I stand corrected on the definition. My opinion didn't change though. Even if you look at a player's perspective, browser games shouldn't be included in 'F2P' when we're comparing MMOG. Especially when you're trying to draw a conclusion between F2P and P2P. It's nice to have numbers on browser games, but its usage is different than PC or console games.
F2P vs P2P is based on how the customer pays for something. Unless the browser is used for the transactions (and it is used equally for both) it is not relevant on how the customer pays.
As this is about how PC based games are played, and client vs browser is a reasonable determination of how the game is being delivered. I will state that the line is being blurred significantly, as the examples of games I gave were both browser games, with a ~1G download (what would have been a client in the past).
F2P vs P2P is based on how the customer pays for something. Unless the browser is used for the transactions (and it is used equally for both) it is not relevant on how the customer pays.
As this is about how PC based games are played, and client vs browser is a reasonable determination of how the game is being delivered. I will state that the line is being blurred significantly, as the examples of games I gave were both browser games, with a ~1G download (what would have been a client in the past).
Still, browser games target a completely different audience than PC & console games, so you cannot just create a MMOG F2P category that includes Mafia Wars with PWI, then compare it with P2P games like EVE + World of Warcraft. It's like comparing viewers between movies and network television. Or sales between books and newspapers.
Edit: The audience is just not the same when it comes to browser games. Not in a way that both style are played by different persons, but in the context of playing 'Mafia War' is too different (aka when I browse into Facebook) then when I play a (real) MMOG (I decide to play X for 3 hours).
F2P vs P2P is based on how the customer pays for something. Unless the browser is used for the transactions (and it is used equally for both) it is not relevant on how the customer pays.
As this is about how PC based games are played, and client vs browser is a reasonable determination of how the game is being delivered. I will state that the line is being blurred significantly, as the examples of games I gave were both browser games, with a ~1G download (what would have been a client in the past).
Still, browser games target a completely different audience than PC & console games, so you cannot just create a MMOG F2P category that includes Mafia Wars with PWI, then compare it with P2P games like EVE + World of Warcraft. It's like comparing viewers between movies and network television. Or sales between books and newspapers.
Edit: The audience is just not the same when it comes to browser games. Not in a way that both style are played by different persons, but in the context of playing 'Mafia War' is too different (aka when I browse into Facebook) then when I play a (real) MMOG (I decide to play X for 3 hours).
I do agree that casual games may not be the same audience as more hardcore games... but that this has nothing to do with the browser. If you run a FPS in a browser, does it become less hardcore? If you download a facebook app, does it become less casual? The distinction is not in the user interface, but the content.
The problem is that the gaming market is not clearly segmented... to either the customer OR the developer. There is a lot of crossover in the various segments, and as such it is reasonable to view the whole, rather than just a small segment.
The problem is when people feel excluded, and I can give a classic example: WoW
EQ is to WoW as WoW is to Farmville.
EQ is what defined the MMO market at the time, when WoW came out, it appealed to a totally different demographic. Based on this it should be a new market, and not compared...
WoW is what defined the MMOI market at the time, when FarmVill came out, it appealed to a totally different demographic. Basedon this it should be a new market, and not compared...
However, the world does not work like that. These markets all get mashed together in to a larger pot that we call PC Gaming. So, in reality there are a lot of differnt markets within this, but they are looked at as a whole, because they do have common elements, and a high amount of crossover.
I don't think we will agree on this. If a browser FPS comes live and ever starts competing PC & console games we'll talk. But so far, I don't see any browser games ever coming close to any PC & console games when it comes to competing into any classic segment.
I don't really agree about the hardcore vs casual argument. While it is gives you popularity points to say WoW is not a hardcore game, it is a highly subjective opinion. Even Farmville can be seen as hardcore if one is dropping a lot of cash to get some in game currency or really puts in a lot of time into it.
Regardless, my distinction isn't really comparing casual or hardcore audience. But more the context they play the game. You can leave a tab opened in Farmville and play at work if you have nothing to do. Because of that, you cannot really compare Farmville's 62 million active user accounts against World of Warcraft's 12 million active subscriptions.
Originally posted by Emhster Still, browser games target a completely different audience than PC & console games,
Oh really? Have you seen the screenshot with the graphs? 71% of the players play both - client and browser based games so please tell me how different this audience is...
You just refuse to take into consideration that those data are collected and structured for certain purpose and use. Purpose that does not fit your own personal needs and perception.
Comments
HAHAHAHA the "Graph" is put out by NewZoo ..... how funny.
One other opinion and I will stop. Any time a group of say 10 fairly intelligent people are presented with a "graphic" display and there are 10 different interpetations of what the numbers are .... and nobody agrees on what the number mean, then one of 2 things happened. One; The producer of the documwent wants to mislead as many people as he can. or two; The producer of the document has not a clue what the numbers are or what they mean. Just my opinion.
If Ya Ain't Dyin, Ya Ain't Tryin
Exactly.
It doesn't matter what we the Players think about this data.
The only thing that matters is what the Investors / Publishers think about this date... what they see when the read this report. Since Investors and Publishers are seldom Players of MMOGs, they will by default see something other than we do...
And future MMOGs will be developed according to that view, whether it is appealing to us or not.
Perhaps the pendulum will shift back someday and MMOGs will once again be designed for customers like the Players that have been MMOGamers for years and are most upset about the recent market shifts. For that to happen though I believe a study would have to be done with by us the Players ourselves if we ever hope to see Investors and Publishers encouraged to focus on quality full featured pay to play MMORPGs again. It would also help if we could finally decide on an "official" definition of a MMORPG and a MMOG. That may be more difficult than anything else as we the Players after all these years still haven't decided on that issue. Maybe it's time we did.
Until then the love of profit will ensure that MMOGs will continue to change in a direction that most of us will eventually have a disagreement with (even if we do not disagree with the current trend right now).
I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!"
...............
"I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. "
__Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__
...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...
Any developer using that study is going to be on the bottom looking up. Anyone with any intelligence would recognize that report as a highly skewed numbers favoring the f2p market, when in actuality the money is still in the p2p games. I will bet that Lotro and DDO are both making far more from p2p revenue than f2p.
Like I said before, the f2p market does not release active accounts nor revenues, so how are you going to get accurate numbers for a study like this? That is right, they aren't.
Is it really so shocking to see those numbers the way they are? I don't think so.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
I hate to break it to you, but the figures in this report, while not exact by any means, are pretty fair estimates. In their current forms, F2P games are not going to make nearly what a standard $15 per month P2P game will make. It is clear, however, that there is a much wider audience playing casual browser-based games, and that F2P models are on the rise, and attracting new players.
Anyone with any antelligence would recognize that there are far more players on casual games like Mafia Wars than MMO's like EVE. While Mafia Wars will never make the money per-player that EVE makes, they are still highly profitable because of the sheer number of players, the ad revenue the game brings in, and low overhead costs of running the game.
I do not play any F2P or browser-based games, I find games like Farmville tedius and unenjoyable. I am not opposed to F2P or "freemium" models, but I will not play any of these games that sell potions or other items that affect gameplay. I have no doubt that eventually, a company will find the "perfect balance" of a F2P/freemium model that will change how successful MMO's make their profits.
I think that if you look at these figures objectively, you'll see that P2P MMO's still bring in far more money, but this is not a trend that will last forever. There is clearly a ceiling on the number of $15 monthly subscription gamers, but there's also a larger, as-yet undetermined pool of players that can be tapped into using a model that is less intrusive to their wallets.
Good questions but there is another valid point of view.
There are many differences between browser and client based games, however payment model and development platform are decisions made mostly on available resources, production costs and potential revenue - something that isn't a subject of this research.
The subject here is customer needs and what market preference is. That means, client and browser games will try to get something from the both worlds. Client based games will lean more towards casual play of browser games and browser games will get 3D graphics engines and more complex game play. I would say you can already notice those trends and that is exactly what the interest of the investor, developer or publisher in this research is.
Huh? Haven't this has been posted already?
Online Games in Girl's Eyes
http://chickgeekgames.blogspot.com
the whole f2p/p2p discussion is far more complicated than it might seams because beside the economical point of view you also have the social and culture part.
in my opinion we have 3 diffrent kinds of f2p client based mmog out there. first the c-grade ones, the typical so called asian grinder games, all are very similiar to each other in gameplay and gamedepth. second the b-garde ones, orginal designed as f2p counterparts of the big triple a p2p games, with much more content and gamedepth than the c-garde ones. examples are runes of magic and atlantica online which are making more money in a month than most p2p games, if my numbers are correct. and third we have the a-grade f2p games, original designed as p2p games, these one have the advantage to have better graphics, great gameplay, huge content and gamedepth in comparison to the b- and c-grade ones.
atm old c- and b-grade f2p games are flooding the western mmog market. spontaneously i can name 4 games designed in asia older than 3-5 years which are currently be translated into german or are in beta phase ready to launch for the german market. they all want a piece of the big cake. but honestly, who wants to play these colourless 'asia-grinders' when you can have eqII, lotro, dnd or co for free? i guess not so many people and i bet turbine, soe, cryptic had the same thoughts. so the f2p market will change. the chance to make money for c-garde f2p games on the western market will fall to almost zero. the b-grade ones still do have a good chance to earn their money if they provide something unique the a-grades don't have (like atlantica and the combat system).
a possible scenario for the future could be that a triple a game will be launched right from the start in 2 versions and 2 diffrent kind of servers. f2p on a f2p only server and p2p on p2p only servers with the chance of accounttransfer in both directions. well, thats what i would do ....
now a quick look at the social part of the f2p discussion. as before i also would like to divide this into categories. first we have the browser games, which are played mostly during work (at least my own research with over 5000 interviewees so far tells me that 83% of all browser games user playing during work and 49% of them during work only). second we have the f2p only players. in this category its very hard to say which group does have the majority. kids between 12 and 18, students and unemployees have s strong appearance but also interesting is that f2p does have a lot of first-time-mmog-users above the age of 40. and third we have the i-only-pay-for-one-p2p-game category. for example: 69% of all wow-players are also playing a f2p game and investing an equal amount of time in it. 35% of them are using the cash shops. a big part in this third category is the group dynamic within a guild/clan. people forged together over years still want to play together in the future. some of them stuck in the old games, some want to try something else, but they don't want to be divided.
any thoughts are welcome...
Currently there are F2P, B2P and P2P games. And the F2P do have gotten more shares of the market lately but that does not mean that P2P will continue to loose shares in the future, it is possible but it can also be a trend that turns anytime.
And B2P is barely having any shares at all right now but once GW2 releases it is not impossible that it start taking a lot of market shares, if a game that is really successful (which we of course have no way knowing if GW 2 actually will be) have a certain model that model tend to be a lot more popular among other devs.
But I don't really see the point, we will continue to pay for our games. If it will be in an item shop, a monthly fees or even by being showed adds instead does not really matters that much.
What do upset me a bit and what might be the reason F2P actually gains market so fast today is the fact that many games keep their monthly fees but still add the F2P games item shops. Greed makes them both try to eat the cake and keep it, and it is very possible that it is one of the main reasons F2P games have past P2P games and continue to do so fast.
It is clear that most P2P games should consider how they can get bigger shares of the market, and changing model is not the right way to do that but they will have to offer a superior service and many are just not doing that.
Some of you have discounted the data... but if you look around, you will see similar data from multiple other studies... so it is unlikely that they are all wrong.
For anecdotal data, just check out the news stories for the past two years. Two years ago facebook/FarmVille was the big new story, and it has not gone away. Sure there are other hits now, and the market is maturing with DDO/LOTRO and EQ2 all F2P now. The news is all over, and these results show not what will happen, but what has already happened...
Because of the increased competition, there are changes in the games coming to the market. It used to be that a game would launch in its primary market (where the developers are) and then in 3-5 years (if it did well) it would be ported to new markets. There are comments made about Asian games that are that old being ported to Germany... and this is a classic example. However, they are now competing with both P2P games that have gone F2P, and games that are launching in multiple markets simultaneously (or with less than 1 year delay). These games missed their window, as the market changed.
The bottom line is that the business has changed... and that is what it is, a business. The people involved (Developers, Publishers, Investors) are all seeing this (type) of data, and are reacting to it... because if they dont, they will cease to exist. Sure, the people here can badmouth, and belittle other gamers that dont play 'their' games... but a company can not afford to do that to its customers.... not if they want to stay in business.
I understand, and I somewhat agree with your point of view on casual games. Though this research doesn't seem to mention anything about casual games. Unless you assume casual gamers don't want to spend money on a subscription. While it may be valid, it is still an assumption.
3D engine have been existing for browser games for a while. The first one I've played was in 2000 with the Shockwave plugin. Such technology is, however, very limited to the browser's capacity and will never catch up on standalone clients.
However in this case, we're mixing browser and standalone games together under a 'F2P' label, and then pulls the conclusion that 75 to 80% of MMOG gamers only use the F2P model. This is wrong. This study is, in my opinion, written to mislead investors.
Base on fact, they had already this post but my opinion seem the same , people won't pay for a game when they have the same game F2P ? agree with the fact that P2P have more things and have better graphics but the principe is the same has F2P
Call me LeDommM
You got a wrong perception and missing the point.
This isn't an analysis of online gaming industry, this is the research of what players, the customers liking are thus mixed graph is indeed at place because it describes people behavior and habits.
With all due respect Gdemami, I consider a research on the playerbase is an analysis of the online gaming industry. It's a gathering of the point of view of its customers. Therefore, I believe my perception belongs to the scope of this article.
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say?
There is a difference between how players percieve games, and developers percieve them.
Let me give several good examples:
BattleStar Galactica
Tiger Woods PGA Online
These games are drastically different from a player persective, and would not seem to have much in common. However, to a developer they have a lot in common, as they feature similar technologies.
The data presented is based on the CONSUMER point of view, not the developer view. To the consumer browser/client is not the same issue as it is to a developer. The consumer is looking for the type of game that they like to play, and the content that they enjoy. They are not concerned about the technology used to create or run it.
The data provided gives a good insight to what consumers are currently using, and they ways that they are choosing to pay for it. This has no effect on what content the developer is making, but does have an effect on how they present that content.
If you make a research of the industry, you inquire game developers and publishers.
If you make a research of the customer habits, you inquire customers.
Two different subject, two different type of research. You could say that one is a research about incentives and the other is about the response to that incentive.
Why are people throwing such a fit that F2P is more popular than P2P?
If you look at any other market than the US F2P is pretty much all you get because its a better option. It gives the ability for people to try the game and then decide if they want to invest their money in it.
How many of you have been burned by a P2P where you pre-ordered or bought a 40-60$ box to play for the free month and go "wow this game sucks, I am an idiot"
F2P gets rid of that barrier for people who dont want to drop money on a game that they may hate.
Pretty much this. The data for industry research would be vastly different, it would be about money mostly. How much companies with certain specifics make, what they produce, human resources, costs, expenses, revenues, etc.
On the other hand, this research is about desires and customer behavior. It gives an insight how people spent their time and money on online gaming.
Two very different data.
I stand corrected on the definition. My opinion didn't change though. Even if you look at a player's perspective, browser games shouldn't be included in 'F2P' when we're comparing MMOG. Especially when you're trying to draw a conclusion between F2P and P2P. It's nice to have numbers on browser games, but its usage is different than PC or console games.
F2P vs P2P is based on how the customer pays for something. Unless the browser is used for the transactions (and it is used equally for both) it is not relevant on how the customer pays.
As this is about how PC based games are played, and client vs browser is a reasonable determination of how the game is being delivered. I will state that the line is being blurred significantly, as the examples of games I gave were both browser games, with a ~1G download (what would have been a client in the past).
Still, browser games target a completely different audience than PC & console games, so you cannot just create a MMOG F2P category that includes Mafia Wars with PWI, then compare it with P2P games like EVE + World of Warcraft. It's like comparing viewers between movies and network television. Or sales between books and newspapers.
Edit: The audience is just not the same when it comes to browser games. Not in a way that both style are played by different persons, but in the context of playing 'Mafia War' is too different (aka when I browse into Facebook) then when I play a (real) MMOG (I decide to play X for 3 hours).
I do agree that casual games may not be the same audience as more hardcore games... but that this has nothing to do with the browser. If you run a FPS in a browser, does it become less hardcore? If you download a facebook app, does it become less casual? The distinction is not in the user interface, but the content.
The problem is that the gaming market is not clearly segmented... to either the customer OR the developer. There is a lot of crossover in the various segments, and as such it is reasonable to view the whole, rather than just a small segment.
The problem is when people feel excluded, and I can give a classic example: WoW
EQ is to WoW as WoW is to Farmville.
EQ is what defined the MMO market at the time, when WoW came out, it appealed to a totally different demographic. Based on this it should be a new market, and not compared...
WoW is what defined the MMOI market at the time, when FarmVill came out, it appealed to a totally different demographic. Basedon this it should be a new market, and not compared...
However, the world does not work like that. These markets all get mashed together in to a larger pot that we call PC Gaming. So, in reality there are a lot of differnt markets within this, but they are looked at as a whole, because they do have common elements, and a high amount of crossover.
I don't think we will agree on this. If a browser FPS comes live and ever starts competing PC & console games we'll talk. But so far, I don't see any browser games ever coming close to any PC & console games when it comes to competing into any classic segment.
I don't really agree about the hardcore vs casual argument. While it is gives you popularity points to say WoW is not a hardcore game, it is a highly subjective opinion. Even Farmville can be seen as hardcore if one is dropping a lot of cash to get some in game currency or really puts in a lot of time into it.
Regardless, my distinction isn't really comparing casual or hardcore audience. But more the context they play the game. You can leave a tab opened in Farmville and play at work if you have nothing to do. Because of that, you cannot really compare Farmville's 62 million active user accounts against World of Warcraft's 12 million active subscriptions.
Oh really? Have you seen the screenshot with the graphs? 71% of the players play both - client and browser based games so please tell me how different this audience is...
You just refuse to take into consideration that those data are collected and structured for certain purpose and use. Purpose that does not fit your own personal needs and perception.