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...
Nice way to dismiss my opinion. The graph doesn't prove me wrong. They are not mutually exclusive audiences, as I stated in my own post. But they are not the same audience. Audience for browser games on social networking websites are those users browsing Facebook. Cyber Loitering. I've never said one playing Mafia Wars or Farmville doesn't play World of Warcraft, that is just putting words in my mouth to make it easier to attack my argument.
Originally posted by Gdemami
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.
I admit this study is not meant for me. Though if you've read Richard's post, he's concluding that F2P games are eating market shares from P2P games based on a study that includes browser games. That is where I disagree. I explained why. Your counter argument now is that I don't understand the audience and this data doesn't fit my own personal needs and perception. Oooook.
Originally posted by EmhsterBut they are not the same audience.
Q: Do you play and spend money on both - client and web based online games? A1: Yes, I do. A2: Yes, I do.
I fail to see what the difference here is. Motives might be but then I see no relevance in context of this study.
It does not change anything about the fact that both answers come from users of the same product - online game. It does not invalidate the data.
Originally posted by Emhster
I admit this study is not meant for me. Though if you've read Richard's post, he's concluding that F2P games are eating market shares from P2P games based on a study that includes browser games. That is where I disagree. I explained why. Your counter argument now is that I don't understand the audience and this data doesn't fit my own personal needs and perception. Oooook.
Then it is misunderstanding(not sure on what end) and you probably might need to formulate better. You attack the data but those do not make conclusions. Data are either valid or invalid by method, their interpretation is something else though.
EDIT:
Originally posted by Emhster Originally posted by Richard Aihoshi One is that F2P isn't, as some would still like to believe, a small although growing part of the total market. It's large - actually, very large - and growing. It accounts for far more players, and in much of Europe, also pulls in more money. From there, it's clearly not a huge leap to thinking it's possible, even probable that the balance of revenue is shifting away from P2P in the US too; i.e. F2P is gaining market share as measured in dollars - and perhaps at quite a good pace..
He's basing his conclusion on a study that includes browser games in their comparison. In other word, this study not only compares browser games against a small segment of our standard computer games, it also compares games from completely different styles (building a farm vs fighting the Lich King). We'll see what happens in 2011-2012. There are at least 4 great AAA P2P MMORPGs coming up; something never seen before, in a market segment that has not seen any great releases for few years. Meanwhile we'll keep seeing studies like that pulling numbers from browser games to make any conclusion they want.
And this is still fine comparison. When you want to look at trends in the whole industry, you need also need to look at the whole industry. It is about scope of the things.
Sure it is relevant to know how many client based games are F2P or P2P model but that means nothing if you do not know what market share those games represent on whole online gaming market. This is why it is mixed.
Yes, F2P have a bigger slice of the pie, but how many titles are sharing that portion of the pie? It may be a growing market but it is also relatively easier to enter into that segment of the market compared to P2P, meaning more competitors, more titles, less refined. So many F2P out there are cloned version of one another with slight variation...
The number of players that is paying for P2P still out numbers those that pays for F2P...isn't revenue the driving force behind the success of a game rather than just number of players?
I usually prefer P2P games but touched some F2P games here and there though never quite paying much for them because I find it less refined and complex as compared to a P2P.
I'm suspicious of any report that shows a 30% pay anything rate for F2P games. Most developer released reports that I've seen have that number at more like 10%, and that the bulk of the revenue are from a small subset of that group.
I suspect that for most F2P, there's a 50% uninstall rate just in the first hour of gameplay. Does that person count as a player or an established account? This alone could be skewing the numbers significantly.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
The truth is that only few people play games. We find many across the internet because you either work, browse or play online. Simple as that.
MMORPG.COM is supposed to be some "great" site that is all about "MMORPGs" but truth be told....there are 1,275,023 members, and only 1,254 guests and 185 onlline.
So members logged in = .0001450% (Wow, so many!!)
Guests viewing = .0009835% (Wow, even better!)
Of course, people will have me believe that 1.2 million members are active throughout the day and night although the last time someone posted anything in the console gaming subforums was 10 days ago. ^_^
Just like when MMORPG companies talk about their subscriber base.
You think I believe that nearly 1 in 6 Americans play an MMOG when 55% of american combine to make up the Underclass, Working Poor and Working Class? I was part of that group for a while...Where I worked 40 - 60 hours a week or more...Blew out 10+ hours on transportation, Got home and had many more things to do...and nearly no time for playing games.
The majority of the people i meet in the real world do not have time for games and those that do, are not enthusiastic or locked into one game like most of the addicts floating around the internet.
Welcome to the world where either one has absolutely no life, or is controlled by life and made a slave to it.....That is the life of an American. Either you are addicted to working yourself to death or being lazy to death.
Anyone in the math world knows to not any statistic that comes from Romania, The Netherlands or China, for many reasons. ^_^
Oh my, here we go again in the F2P vs P2P debate. I make it brief.
1. I doubt the very definitions of the study. What IS free to play? Is LOTRO free, when parts of the content are not free? Is EQ2X free, when you can`t even chat? I just doubt this study's validity in the terms.
2. The terms F2P is false. There is no such thing as free. In almost all these games you are stuck to mininal gameplay. Or they are cheap Asia grinders. The REAL translation of these game models is more "flatrate payment" = monthly fee VS "pay per use" = cash shop payment. Like in the case of internet or telephone I ALWAYS prefer flatrate. It includes all for one fee. How can that be bad?
3. Personally, I realized I spent more money when playing so called F2P games, because much that I was interested in (cool looking gear, mounts asf) were all for Dollars only. Yes, call me weak willed, but when I see all the cool mounts and gear and clothing, I usually can't resist, and I really want my stuff included in one fee that covers all. End of story.
4. I haven't seen a single MMO with the so called "F2P" model that wasn't cheap and 2nd best. I know no triple A MMO which was F2P with cash shop.
5. Finally: getting into F2P + cash shop shifts the way MMOs are created. If you sell the whole package for one monthly fee, you don't have to wonder how to reserve nice and cool stuff on the item shop, you don't bend the creativity to work around some cash shop ideology. Only in the monthy fee model designers are really free of all these ideas of "how does that pay" or "how does this lead to item shop greed". F2P entirely alters the creativity process.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Originally posted by Elikal Oh my, here we go again in the F2P vs P2P debate. I make it brief. 1. I doubt the very definitions of the study. What IS free to play? Is LOTRO free, when parts of the content are not free? Is EQ2X free, when you can`t even chat? I just doubt this study's validity in the terms. 2. The terms F2P is false. There is no such thing as free. In almost all these games you are stuck to mininal gameplay. Or they are cheap Asia grinders. The REAL translation of these game models is more "flatrate payment" = monthly fee VS "pay per use" = cash shop payment. Like in the case of internet or telephone I ALWAYS prefer flatrate. It includes all for one fee. How can that be bad? 3. Personally, I realized I spent more money when playing so called F2P games, because much that I was interested in (cool looking gear, mounts asf) were all for Dollars only. Yes, call me weak willed, but when I see all the cool mounts and gear and clothing, I usually can't resist, and I really want my stuff included in one fee that covers all. End of story. 4. I haven't seen a single MMO with the so called "F2P" model that wasn't cheap and 2nd best. I know no triple A MMO which was F2P with cash shop. 5. Finally: getting into F2P + cash shop shifts the way MMOs are created. If you sell the whole package for one monthly fee, you don't have to wonder how to reserve nice and cool stuff on the item shop, you don't bend the creativity to work around some cash shop ideology. Only in the monthy fee model designers are really free of all these ideas of "how does that pay" or "how does this lead to item shop greed". F2P entirely alters the creativity process.
Oh my, here we go again, people who do not understand what F2P means...
F2P or P2P is determined by access to the service, F2P means there is no charge for acess unlike subscription based model.
Oh my, here we go again in the F2P vs P2P debate. I make it brief.
1. I doubt the very definitions of the study. What IS free to play? Is LOTRO free, when parts of the content are not free? Is EQ2X free, when you can`t even chat? I just doubt this study's validity in the terms.
2. The terms F2P is false. There is no such thing as free. In almost all these games you are stuck to mininal gameplay. Or they are cheap Asia grinders. The REAL translation of these game models is more "flatrate payment" = monthly fee VS "pay per use" = cash shop payment. Like in the case of internet or telephone I ALWAYS prefer flatrate. It includes all for one fee. How can that be bad?
3. Personally, I realized I spent more money when playing so called F2P games, because much that I was interested in (cool looking gear, mounts asf) were all for Dollars only. Yes, call me weak willed, but when I see all the cool mounts and gear and clothing, I usually can't resist, and I really want my stuff included in one fee that covers all. End of story.
4. I haven't seen a single MMO with the so called "F2P" model that wasn't cheap and 2nd best. I know no triple A MMO which was F2P with cash shop.
5. Finally: getting into F2P + cash shop shifts the way MMOs are created. If you sell the whole package for one monthly fee, you don't have to wonder how to reserve nice and cool stuff on the item shop, you don't bend the creativity to work around some cash shop ideology. Only in the monthy fee model designers are really free of all these ideas of "how does that pay" or "how does this lead to item shop greed". F2P entirely alters the creativity process.
Oh my, here we go again, people who do not understand what F2P means...
F2P or P2P is determined by access to the service, F2P means there is no charge for acess unlike subscription based model.
Yes, but here is the newsflash, genius: F2P isn't made out of generosity! They want/need to make their money just as well! So they take out all cool looking gear, all mounts and whatever OUT of the game and you have to pay EXTRA in a shop. Hence you usually play a LOT more for the same content as you would for a monthly fee.
Do you really think the falsely called F2P is for the sake of kindness towards poor people?
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
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.
He is right. Farmville and wow are totally different games and shouldn't be put together in the same category. If you put wow and modern warfare in the graph I'm pretty sure 70% would play both but these games are nowhere the same.
Originally posted by Edli He is right. Farmville and wow are totally different games and shouldn't be put together in the same category. If you put wow and modern warfare in the graph I'm pretty sure 70% would play both but these games are nowhere the same.
Except CoD is offline game and does not fit the scope of the graphs presented. Surely, it have information value to compare online/offline games but that isn't the subject here.
He is right. Farmville and wow are totally different games and shouldn't be put together in the same category. If you put wow and modern warfare in the graph I'm pretty sure 70% would play both but these games are nowhere the same.
Except CoD is offline game and does not fit the scope of the graphs presented. Surely, it have information value to compare online/offline games but that isn't the subject here.
Yeah and farmville is not really a mmo and shouldn't be there. That was my point.
Originally posted by Edli Yeah and farmville is not really a mmo and shouldn't be there. That was my point.
Once you will be able to define MMO, you might make some point. Also, MMO term does not have any value from business point of view. From business perception it is all online (video game) entertainment.
I think the problem here is that mostly you look at those graphs as a player and seek what is interesting there for you, as a player and individual but those graphs are not meant for player eyes mostly.
Yeah and farmville is not really a mmo and shouldn't be there. That was my point.
Once you will be able to define MMO, you might make some point. Also, MMO term does not have any value from business point of view. From business perception it is all online (video game) entertainment.
I think the problem here is that mostly you look at those graphs as a player and seek what is interesting there for you, as a player and individual but those graphs are not meant for player eyes mostly.
A mmo is a massive multiplayer game. It's already defined. Farmville is by no means a mmo game.
This graph may tell that there are more peoples playing browser games than mmo in the same way another graph may say that there are more peoples playing fps than racing games. But there still is a large market asking for racing games that wants to be filled.
That isn't a definition, it is what the acronym MMO stands for.
Massive multiplayer online means exactly what it says as first person shooter means first person shooter and as racing game means racing game.. The definition is in the words.
Originally posted by Edli Massive multiplayer online means exactly what it says as first person shooter means first person shooter and as racing game means racing game.. The definition is in the words.
Sigh...
What does 'massive multiplayer' mean? Does it include FPS games like CoD? Or real-time strategy? DOTA? etc... How many people have to play in multiplayer to be considered massive and is the number of player the only condition?
MMO is very vague term.
However, as I said, it isn't really important to define MMO. Online gaming market isn't clearly segmented, it is new and rapidly evolving industry.
Massive multiplayer online means exactly what it says as first person shooter means first person shooter and as racing game means racing game.. The definition is in the words.
Sigh...
What does 'massive multiplayer' mean? Does it include FPS games like CoD? Or real-time strategy? DOTA? etc... How many people have to play in multiplayer to be considered massive and is the number of player the only condition?
MMO is very vague term.
However, as I said, it isn't really important to define MMO. Online gaming market isn't clearly segmented, it is new and rapidly evolving industry.
Do you really consider 10 players a massive number? I don't know why do you insist on creating a new definition for this genre. The mmo players have a pretty clear understanding of what mmo means.
You are trying to lump all these games into this broad definition of online gaming market. It's like putting together all the offline games in one category. More and more games are using online features now. Even settlers 7 that I'm playing now have online features like share achievement in facebook, chat and stuff like that. You may call it an online game somehow, you may call it a multiplayer online game but not a massive mutliplayer online game. It's just not massive. Massive doesn't stand for how many players play the game in the world but how many players play together in the same world.
F2P vs P2P refer to whether you need to pay up front, not whether you pay a monthly fee. If you have to buy the game, or pay for an account, it is P2P. If both of those are free, then it is F2P. People seem to forget that the largest F2P games in the western market have monthly fees.
I am sure that we can all agree that WoW and FarmVille are differnt types of games. However they both allow for large amounts of players to interact with each other online. This is the root of the MMO definition, and it fits the common understanding of the definition. Withou a clear definition of how this is meiasured, then any definition that meets this criteria is just as correct as any other definition. An example of this that I can give is RTS games... which by any measurement are really RTT (real time tactics) but are accepted because of how they are percieved.
The data givin is generally valid, and as such presents the 'target audience' for games in the near future. It should not surprise anyone when the game market follows these trends (as we have already been seeing) because they are looking to monitize their products. That is about as much as can be made of these graphs, as they are general data, and simply validate what can be seen from other sources.
Originally posted by Superman0X F2P vs P2P refer to whether you need to pay up front, not whether you pay a monthly fee. If you have to buy the game, or pay for an account, it is P2P. If both of those are free, then it is F2P.
Monthly fee is technically nothing more than time limited 'pay up front'. Your reasoning is flawed.
F2P vs P2P refer to whether you need to pay up front, not whether you pay a monthly fee. If you have to buy the game, or pay for an account, it is P2P. If both of those are free, then it is F2P.
Monthly fee is technically nothing more than time limited 'pay up front'. Your reasoning is flawed.
Monthly fee is a fixed rate payment for service based on a preset time. Let me give an example:
Google email is free. You do not have to pay for anything upfront (intial sale) or a fee to use the sercvice If it were a game, it would be F2P. However, they have monthly fees for premium services. If you want more than what they offer with their free service, you can pay the montlhy fees, and get the extra services. This is how the largest (western) F2P games work.
The logic (and information provided) is sound, and is something that can be easily verified. The flaw you made was in assuming that you could not have layers of service... that it had to be all or nothing.
Originally posted by Superman0X Google email is free. You do not have to pay for anything upfront (intial sale) or a fee to use the sercvice If it were a game, it would be F2P. However, they have monthly fees for premium services.
You have to make up your mind.
If the game is F2P because I do not have to pay any 'initial'(purchase) price and some other game is also F2P because I do not have to pay any initial price but I have pay monthly fee, it does not make any sense and give no information about revenue and payment model.
Free2Play - have no fee for purchase nor access to service
Google email is free. You do not have to pay for anything upfront (intial sale) or a fee to use the sercvice If it were a game, it would be F2P. However, they have monthly fees for premium services.
You have to make up your mind.
If the game is F2P because I do not have to pay any 'initial'(purchase) price and some other game is also F2P because I do not have to pay any initial price but I have pay monthly fee, it does not make any sense and give no information about revenue and payment model.
Free2Play - have no fee for purchase nor access to service
Pay2Play - have fee to access the service
Buy2Play - have purchase fee
As said, your logic flawed.
Actually you are mistaking something
Free2Play != Free
Free means you never pay, for anything.
Free2Play means you do not HAVE to pay to play the game. It does not state that it is all inclusive, or that there are no other options.
Let me give an example of this from the gaming industry. Runescape.
This browser based MMORPG was launched as a F2P game in 2001(?? not 100% sure of the date). It is a classic F2P game, with no purchase fee, or account fee. It has a premium option that you can get with a monthly fee. It is one of the oldest/biggest F2P games in the western market.
If we were in the process of defining what F2P means... then you might have a point. However, as this is a standard market definition, with years of prescedent, then it means what the market understands it to mean... not what you think it should mean.
I am sure that we can all agree that WoW and FarmVille are differnt types of games. However they both allow for large amounts of players to interact with each other online. This is the root of the MMO definition
How do farmville players interact with each other? I've seen my friend playing a lot of times and I never saw him play with someone else. The most he did was going to another player's farm and click a button to kill rats. Is this massive multiplayer interaction for you? Really? Or do you call interaction the chat, which btw is a feature of the facebook not the game itself. I brought the example of settlers 7. That game allows you to chat with other players, get help from them and even play with or against 4(I think) of them. Would you call this game a mmo too?
Comments
Nice way to dismiss my opinion. The graph doesn't prove me wrong. They are not mutually exclusive audiences, as I stated in my own post. But they are not the same audience. Audience for browser games on social networking websites are those users browsing Facebook. Cyber Loitering. I've never said one playing Mafia Wars or Farmville doesn't play World of Warcraft, that is just putting words in my mouth to make it easier to attack my argument.
I admit this study is not meant for me. Though if you've read Richard's post, he's concluding that F2P games are eating market shares from P2P games based on a study that includes browser games. That is where I disagree. I explained why. Your counter argument now is that I don't understand the audience and this data doesn't fit my own personal needs and perception. Oooook.
Q: Do you play and spend money on both - client and web based online games?
A1: Yes, I do.
A2: Yes, I do.
I fail to see what the difference here is. Motives might be but then I see no relevance in context of this study.
It does not change anything about the fact that both answers come from users of the same product - online game. It does not invalidate the data.
Then it is misunderstanding(not sure on what end) and you probably might need to formulate better. You attack the data but those do not make conclusions. Data are either valid or invalid by method, their interpretation is something else though.
He's basing his conclusion on a study that includes browser games in their comparison. In other word, this study not only compares browser games against a small segment of our standard computer games, it also compares games from completely different styles (building a farm vs fighting the Lich King).EDIT:
We'll see what happens in 2011-2012. There are at least 4 great AAA P2P MMORPGs coming up; something never seen before, in a market segment that has not seen any great releases for few years. Meanwhile we'll keep seeing studies like that pulling numbers from browser games to make any conclusion they want.
And this is still fine comparison. When you want to look at trends in the whole industry, you need also need to look at the whole industry. It is about scope of the things.
Sure it is relevant to know how many client based games are F2P or P2P model but that means nothing if you do not know what market share those games represent on whole online gaming market. This is why it is mixed.
Yes, F2P have a bigger slice of the pie, but how many titles are sharing that portion of the pie? It may be a growing market but it is also relatively easier to enter into that segment of the market compared to P2P, meaning more competitors, more titles, less refined. So many F2P out there are cloned version of one another with slight variation...
The number of players that is paying for P2P still out numbers those that pays for F2P...isn't revenue the driving force behind the success of a game rather than just number of players?
I usually prefer P2P games but touched some F2P games here and there though never quite paying much for them because I find it less refined and complex as compared to a P2P.
I'm suspicious of any report that shows a 30% pay anything rate for F2P games. Most developer released reports that I've seen have that number at more like 10%, and that the bulk of the revenue are from a small subset of that group.
I suspect that for most F2P, there's a 50% uninstall rate just in the first hour of gameplay. Does that person count as a player or an established account? This alone could be skewing the numbers significantly.
The truth is that only few people play games. We find many across the internet because you either work, browse or play online. Simple as that.
MMORPG.COM is supposed to be some "great" site that is all about "MMORPGs" but truth be told....there are 1,275,023 members, and only 1,254 guests and 185 onlline.
So members logged in = .0001450% (Wow, so many!!)
Guests viewing = .0009835% (Wow, even better!)
Of course, people will have me believe that 1.2 million members are active throughout the day and night although the last time someone posted anything in the console gaming subforums was 10 days ago. ^_^
Just like when MMORPG companies talk about their subscriber base.
You think I believe that nearly 1 in 6 Americans play an MMOG when 55% of american combine to make up the Underclass, Working Poor and Working Class? I was part of that group for a while...Where I worked 40 - 60 hours a week or more...Blew out 10+ hours on transportation, Got home and had many more things to do...and nearly no time for playing games.
The majority of the people i meet in the real world do not have time for games and those that do, are not enthusiastic or locked into one game like most of the addicts floating around the internet.
Welcome to the world where either one has absolutely no life, or is controlled by life and made a slave to it.....That is the life of an American. Either you are addicted to working yourself to death or being lazy to death.
Anyone in the math world knows to not any statistic that comes from Romania, The Netherlands or China, for many reasons. ^_^
Oh my, here we go again in the F2P vs P2P debate. I make it brief.
1. I doubt the very definitions of the study. What IS free to play? Is LOTRO free, when parts of the content are not free? Is EQ2X free, when you can`t even chat? I just doubt this study's validity in the terms.
2. The terms F2P is false. There is no such thing as free. In almost all these games you are stuck to mininal gameplay. Or they are cheap Asia grinders. The REAL translation of these game models is more "flatrate payment" = monthly fee VS "pay per use" = cash shop payment. Like in the case of internet or telephone I ALWAYS prefer flatrate. It includes all for one fee. How can that be bad?
3. Personally, I realized I spent more money when playing so called F2P games, because much that I was interested in (cool looking gear, mounts asf) were all for Dollars only. Yes, call me weak willed, but when I see all the cool mounts and gear and clothing, I usually can't resist, and I really want my stuff included in one fee that covers all. End of story.
4. I haven't seen a single MMO with the so called "F2P" model that wasn't cheap and 2nd best. I know no triple A MMO which was F2P with cash shop.
5. Finally: getting into F2P + cash shop shifts the way MMOs are created. If you sell the whole package for one monthly fee, you don't have to wonder how to reserve nice and cool stuff on the item shop, you don't bend the creativity to work around some cash shop ideology. Only in the monthy fee model designers are really free of all these ideas of "how does that pay" or "how does this lead to item shop greed". F2P entirely alters the creativity process.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Oh my, here we go again, people who do not understand what F2P means...
F2P or P2P is determined by access to the service, F2P means there is no charge for acess unlike subscription based model.
Yes, but here is the newsflash, genius: F2P isn't made out of generosity! They want/need to make their money just as well! So they take out all cool looking gear, all mounts and whatever OUT of the game and you have to pay EXTRA in a shop. Hence you usually play a LOT more for the same content as you would for a monthly fee.
Do you really think the falsely called F2P is for the sake of kindness towards poor people?
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
The fact you do not understand what F2P stands for does not mean it is falsely named, it only means you're an ignorant.
So again, F2P, P2P, B2P or w/e is not about if and how much you are paying for the content, it is about service access.
He is right. Farmville and wow are totally different games and shouldn't be put together in the same category. If you put wow and modern warfare in the graph I'm pretty sure 70% would play both but these games are nowhere the same.
Except CoD is offline game and does not fit the scope of the graphs presented. Surely, it have information value to compare online/offline games but that isn't the subject here.
Yeah and farmville is not really a mmo and shouldn't be there. That was my point.
Once you will be able to define MMO, you might make some point. Also, MMO term does not have any value from business point of view. From business perception it is all online (video game) entertainment.
I think the problem here is that mostly you look at those graphs as a player and seek what is interesting there for you, as a player and individual but those graphs are not meant for player eyes mostly.
A mmo is a massive multiplayer game. It's already defined. Farmville is by no means a mmo game.
This graph may tell that there are more peoples playing browser games than mmo in the same way another graph may say that there are more peoples playing fps than racing games. But there still is a large market asking for racing games that wants to be filled.
That isn't a definition, it is what the acronym MMO stands for.
Massive multiplayer online means exactly what it says as first person shooter means first person shooter and as racing game means racing game.. The definition is in the words.
Sigh...
What does 'massive multiplayer' mean? Does it include FPS games like CoD? Or real-time strategy? DOTA? etc... How many people have to play in multiplayer to be considered massive and is the number of player the only condition?
MMO is very vague term.
However, as I said, it isn't really important to define MMO. Online gaming market isn't clearly segmented, it is new and rapidly evolving industry.
Do you really consider 10 players a massive number? I don't know why do you insist on creating a new definition for this genre. The mmo players have a pretty clear understanding of what mmo means.
You are trying to lump all these games into this broad definition of online gaming market. It's like putting together all the offline games in one category. More and more games are using online features now. Even settlers 7 that I'm playing now have online features like share achievement in facebook, chat and stuff like that. You may call it an online game somehow, you may call it a multiplayer online game but not a massive mutliplayer online game. It's just not massive. Massive doesn't stand for how many players play the game in the world but how many players play together in the same world.
Let me interject a few comments real quick here:
F2P vs P2P refer to whether you need to pay up front, not whether you pay a monthly fee. If you have to buy the game, or pay for an account, it is P2P. If both of those are free, then it is F2P. People seem to forget that the largest F2P games in the western market have monthly fees.
I am sure that we can all agree that WoW and FarmVille are differnt types of games. However they both allow for large amounts of players to interact with each other online. This is the root of the MMO definition, and it fits the common understanding of the definition. Withou a clear definition of how this is meiasured, then any definition that meets this criteria is just as correct as any other definition. An example of this that I can give is RTS games... which by any measurement are really RTT (real time tactics) but are accepted because of how they are percieved.
The data givin is generally valid, and as such presents the 'target audience' for games in the near future. It should not surprise anyone when the game market follows these trends (as we have already been seeing) because they are looking to monitize their products. That is about as much as can be made of these graphs, as they are general data, and simply validate what can be seen from other sources.
Monthly fee is technically nothing more than time limited 'pay up front'. Your reasoning is flawed.
Monthly fee is a fixed rate payment for service based on a preset time. Let me give an example:
Google email is free. You do not have to pay for anything upfront (intial sale) or a fee to use the sercvice If it were a game, it would be F2P. However, they have monthly fees for premium services. If you want more than what they offer with their free service, you can pay the montlhy fees, and get the extra services. This is how the largest (western) F2P games work.
The logic (and information provided) is sound, and is something that can be easily verified. The flaw you made was in assuming that you could not have layers of service... that it had to be all or nothing.
You have to make up your mind.
If the game is F2P because I do not have to pay any 'initial'(purchase) price and some other game is also F2P because I do not have to pay any initial price but I have pay monthly fee, it does not make any sense and give no information about revenue and payment model.
Free2Play - have no fee for purchase nor access to service
Pay2Play - have fee to access the service
Buy2Play - have purchase fee
As said, your logic flawed.
Actually you are mistaking something
Free2Play != Free
Free means you never pay, for anything.
Free2Play means you do not HAVE to pay to play the game. It does not state that it is all inclusive, or that there are no other options.
Let me give an example of this from the gaming industry. Runescape.
This browser based MMORPG was launched as a F2P game in 2001(?? not 100% sure of the date). It is a classic F2P game, with no purchase fee, or account fee. It has a premium option that you can get with a monthly fee. It is one of the oldest/biggest F2P games in the western market.
If we were in the process of defining what F2P means... then you might have a point. However, as this is a standard market definition, with years of prescedent, then it means what the market understands it to mean... not what you think it should mean.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
How do farmville players interact with each other? I've seen my friend playing a lot of times and I never saw him play with someone else. The most he did was going to another player's farm and click a button to kill rats. Is this massive multiplayer interaction for you? Really? Or do you call interaction the chat, which btw is a feature of the facebook not the game itself. I brought the example of settlers 7. That game allows you to chat with other players, get help from them and even play with or against 4(I think) of them. Would you call this game a mmo too?
Not we, you are. You are inventing new, flawed and disfunctional definitions.
I have already pointed out and addressed your flaws and explained the determination process enough.
Have fun.