2013 subscription games are a niche ( small developers ) game.
No need to blah blah blah anymore.
/ close thread.
People that use /close thread as if they know more then anyone else are annoying, especially when they are wrong and simply bleating an industry line.
Sub based MMORPGs in 2013 still control more than half of the market.
Of the other half, the vast majority of MMORPGs still offer subs as an option, a popular option at that.
We are now even seeing the start of previously F2P only games offering a sub option, due to the demand of players.
Personally, I believe that if the sub was totally removed tommorrow the vast majority of so called 'F2P' games would collapse without that revenue as a prop.
How many MMORPGs worth playing exist in the West that are purely cash shop supported?
Why o' why are so many players behind this? Why would you choose to support a model which at it's core is only loyal to it's cash shop instead of creating an excellent game peeps will actually want to subsdcribe to?
To me it is black and white and rather simple.
B2P/F2P Model = #1 goal of the developer above all else, get players to bust out their wallet and funnel to cash shop. Game quality and long term commitment suffers...
P2p model = #1 goal of the developer above all else, create a game that is good enough to warrant a loyal sub base and continue to improve it to maintain subs. Game quality improves and players commit longterm otherwise game goes F2P.
Unless time has no value to you, the F2P model equates to wasted time due to roadblocks put before us to get us to bust out our wallets.
Unfortunately MMO's are turning into single player games with endings. Buy an MMO play it for a couple months exhaust the content and move on. Console and shooter fans, this may be fine but those whom prefer long term commitment in their MMO, no so much.
Why o' why are so many players behind this? Why would you choose to support a model which at it's core is only loyal to it's cash shop instead of creating an excellent game peeps will actually want to subsdcribe to?
To me it is black and white and rather simple.
B2P/F2P Model = #1 goal of the developer above all else, get players to bust out their wallet and funnel to cash shop. Game quality and long term commitment suffers...
P2p model = #1 goal of the developer above all else, create a game that is good enough to warrant a loyal sub base and continue to improve it to maintain subs. Game quality improves and players commit longterm otherwise game goes F2P.
Unless time has no value to you, the F2P model equates to wasted time due to roadblocks put before us to get us to bust out our wallets.
Unfortunately MMO's are turning into single player games with endings. Buy an MMO play it for a couple months exhaust the content and move on. Console and shooter fans, this may be fine but those whom prefer long term commitment in their MMO, no so much.
2013 subscription games are a niche ( small developers ) game.
No need to blah blah blah anymore.
/ close thread.
People that use /close thread as if they know more then anyone else are annoying, especially when they are wrong and simply bleating an industry line.
Sub based MMORPGs in 2013 still control more than half of the market.
Of the other half, the vast majority of MMORPGs still offer subs as an option, a popular option at that.
We are now even seeing the start of previously F2P only games offering a sub option, due to the demand of players.
Personally, I believe that if the sub was totally removed tommorrow the vast majority of so called 'F2P' games would collapse without that revenue as a prop.
How many MMORPGs worth playing exist in the West that are purely cash shop supported?
You are no better than him, support your claims by some kind of data, last i heard FTP revenue total was higher than sub which just means there are more people playing FTP games and the amount spent is roughly the same as in a sub game.
You are also asuming that just because they offer an option it means a large part of the population are choosing to sub which for all we know could be false.
Most people that play FT¨P mmos arent gona pay a sub, thats the whole reason they are there playing these games. They want to choose what to pay for.
i have recently changed my stance on this and I am much more open to free to play games, not because i like the model ( i really dont like it) but because sub games are just so subpar nowadays with not enough content to satisfy even a casual gamer. I hate paying for a game up front and paying a sub fee for months just to get bored because the devs were lazy and didnt make a thorough game in the first place that could hold someones interest so if I decide to quit paying I no longer can play the game. If i ever want to go back and check out the game in future content updates i must pony up some more money just to play a game i have already bought.
so despite not liking free to play games i play them because i can still play them even if I dont spend the money every month. one reason i like ddo and think more games should go to that type of content. buy it once it is yours forever and you can still play the content you did buy without a sub fee. Ive got no problems spending money on something I enjoy but Im not gonna spend money just to play a game if the content isnt there. If im relegated to running the same content over and over i should not have to continue paying for that content over and over. When devs quit making single player coop games that you finish up in a week until the next patch then my attitude might change but as of right now why should i pay every month if I dont get content every month. some games you can wait 3 to 6 months for a content update which just gets boring to me.
Why o' why are so many players behind this? Why would you choose to support a model which at it's core is only loyal to it's cash shop instead of creating an excellent game peeps will actually want to subsdcribe to?
To me it is black and white and rather simple.
B2P/F2P Model = #1 goal of the developer above all else, get players to bust out their wallet and funnel to cash shop. Game quality and long term commitment suffers...
P2p model = #1 goal of the developer above all else, create a game that is good enough to warrant a loyal sub base and continue to improve it to maintain subs. Game quality improves and players commit longterm otherwise game goes F2P.
Unless time has no value to you, the F2P model equates to wasted time due to roadblocks put before us to get us to bust out our wallets.
Unfortunately MMO's are turning into single player games with endings. Buy an MMO play it for a couple months exhaust the content and move on. Console and shooter fans, this may be fine but those whom prefer long term commitment in their MMO, no so much.
Thats not how it works. A game developer with a sub can introduce artificial grind to keep you on the game doing the same thing for months without any real content updates so you give them more money for nothing.
At least ftp companies are not hiding this.
Both parties are idealising their chosen business model. In practice neither of them work as advertised
As far as i see they are both two sides of the same coin.
2013 subscription games are a niche ( small developers ) game.
No need to blah blah blah anymore.
/ close thread.
People that use /close thread as if they know more then anyone else are annoying, especially when they are wrong and simply bleating an industry line.
Sub based MMORPGs in 2013 still control more than half of the market.
Of the other half, the vast majority of MMORPGs still offer subs as an option, a popular option at that.
We are now even seeing the start of previously F2P only games offering a sub option, due to the demand of players.
Personally, I believe that if the sub was totally removed tommorrow the vast majority of so called 'F2P' games would collapse without that revenue as a prop.
How many MMORPGs worth playing exist in the West that are purely cash shop supported?
You are no better than him,support your claims by some kind of data
Actually, I invited debate and conversation by asking questions and certainly didn't /endthread (or anything as ridiculous). I do not think my word is the last to be said on the subject and, as va few ets of these boards know, I invite conversation. I might not agree with them but I don't try to shut people down.
So, based on what I criticised him for, I am actually better.
I at no point demanded that he provide supporting links... you have yourself even brought that into the conversation.
last i heard FTP revenue total was higher than sub which just means there are more people playing FTP games and the amount spent is roughly the same as in a sub game.
Where is *your* data? If you are gonna ask me for links you need to provide them yourself.
You are also asuming that just because they offer an option it means a large part of the population are choosing to sub which for all we know could be false.
I merely stated the fact that pretty much every MMORPG in the West offers a sub and that subbing is popular in these games. Hell, TERA's subs actually went up after 'F2P'.
Most people that play FT¨P mmos arent gona pay a sub, thats the whole reason they are there playing these games. They want to choose what to pay for.
Another statement, based on what? Support it, if you are gonna demand that others support theirs.
Look, my problem isn't really what you have said here... it is really just that you have come in, misrepresented what I said in your first sentence, and demanded I do something that you yourself don't (the providing of data).
If you want to chat about the topic that's cool, but I cba with some kind of 'intellectual' pissing contest.
If I am honest, I don't even know why we are all talking about MMORPGs in this thread... the OP's link wasn't even about MMORPGs... it was about mobile gaming. If we are gonna take EA's (of all peoples) endorsement of F2P for mobiles as relevant to the MMORPG market then surely we should be looking at Zynga's collapse and the like as well?
This thread should be just about mobile gaming F2P though really.
F2P is a nothing more than a bubble. It'll pop. And, all these companies that made the massive move to it (like EA) will suffer.
And how do you know that?
In 2012, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1. In terms of revenue, F2p is making as much as P2P and growing from 2009 to 2012.
All i see is a trend for more F2P. If indeed it is a bubble, show me some evidence.
Do you have a source for that? I was under the impression that there were vastly more subscribers in WoW, EVE, Rift, than there are ftpers in all other MMO's combined.
Thats not even counting the subscribers in said "ftp" games.
Again? It has been posted numerous time. Google is your friend.
"Subscription-based MMOs have been on a decline in the US, dropping from 8.5MM in December 2009 to 6.7MM in October 2012. F2P, on the other hand, has been growing from 7.5MM in 2007 to 39.5MM in October 2012."
"The good news is that in 2012, F2P MMOs made more than their P2P counterparts, capturing the majority of the MMO US market’s revenue. The tricky part lies in how to capture and replicate this success."
Why o' why are so many players behind this? Why would you choose to support a model which at it's core is only loyal to it's cash shop instead of creating an excellent game peeps will actually want to subsdcribe to?
Because i can look at such games, and decide if it is fun?
If a game is not fun, f2p or p2p .. i am out of there. If a game is fun & free, is there a reason why i should not be "behind" it? I care very little about dev motivation. If a game entertains me, that is what i will play.
His very first line says gamers are speaking with their wallet ! ROFLMAO,talk about Hypocrite 101.Taht doesn't sound free to play what so ever,it sounds lie ka model they see as making a lot more money,so they want to push it onto everyone.
If you ever see a game made for f2p,it looks cheap both visually and lacking in content.So they can invest far less,develope in a much shorter time,fewer employees and becuase there si no depth or content,they have less bugs as well.So you end up with the shallow shell of a game.
So waht happens then?People play for a bit,then all quit.The only reason this model is not taking severe heat is becuase with no subscription fee there are no numbers to post about how many gamers leave the game.Also the players thjat spend no money,don't care to complain because they were playing for free anyhow.
Let's assume a lot of F2p devs tell us the truth,example they like to post numbers like 10-100 million players.Then you go in the game and it is like a ghost town,nobody playing.With no sub fees,devs can hide the truth about their game.
These games are NOT defined by the simple 50 cents a day,people waste far more money than that.Tehy are defined by quality,yet this EA rep mentions NOTHING about quality.He is only pushing what makes EA more money.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
free to play isn't that great, I'd rather everyone be on an even keel at the beginning of the game and everyone work for their own experience and are rewarded consistent on their adventuring. The only thing I can say is maybe something like the EQ2 system where you can't get like the super-epic legendary gear isn't bad but limiting access to stuff doesn't really help gamers. I like the old-school methods a lot better.
F2P is a nothing more than a bubble. It'll pop. And, all these companies that made the massive move to it (like EA) will suffer.
And how do you know that?
In 2012, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1. In terms of revenue, F2p is making as much as P2P and growing from 2009 to 2012.
All i see is a trend for more F2P. If indeed it is a bubble, show me some evidence.
Do you have a source for that? I was under the impression that there were vastly more subscribers in WoW, EVE, Rift, than there are ftpers in all other MMO's combined.
Thats not even counting the subscribers in said "ftp" games.
Again? It has been posted numerous time. Google is your friend.
"Subscription-based MMOs have been on a decline in the US, dropping from 8.5MM in December 2009 to 6.7MM in October 2012. F2P, on the other hand, has been growing from 7.5MM in 2007 to 39.5MM in October 2012."
"The good news is that in 2012, F2P MMOs made more than their P2P counterparts, capturing the majority of the MMO US market’s revenue. The tricky part lies in how to capture and replicate this success."
You do realise that the only confirmed P2P numbers they included are WoW right? Not Rift, not EVE, not all of the "F2P" (which still have a substantial subscription) games. The article should read "WoW", not "subscription based. Seriously though, read the data behind their study. The only P2P game they confirm they took into account is WoW, which makes sense, seeing as they are the only game (aside form EVE) who announces their actual sub numbers.
Which is quite telling actually, of the popularity of WoW in the US being insanly strong after all these years.
EDIT - After looking at thier data further, they are also including browser base FTP MMOs (a la farmville)...which quite frankly, invalidates their study in this discussion.
F2P is a nothing more than a bubble. It'll pop. And, all these companies that made the massive move to it (like EA) will suffer.
And how do you know that?
In 2012, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1. In terms of revenue, F2p is making as much as P2P and growing from 2009 to 2012.
All i see is a trend for more F2P. If indeed it is a bubble, show me some evidence.
Please remember I said this when it happens that way you'll realize there are people who know what their talking about.
I found plenty of sources for comapnies stating that thier MMOs were generating more revenu as FTP+Cash shop, than when they were just sub based. That does not mean FTP MMOs in general generated more revenu than WoW+EVE+Rift combined, nor out numvber them (esp 6 to 1, unless someone can provide a source).
There is no doubt that FTP is an excellet option if your MMO was not doing well enough to keep players subscribed, but that does not mean its the "better" option for developers, it just means its the better option if your MMO is lacking content/functionality.
Can you point to those sources? Having said that I'm not denying that f2p is a viable business model 'now'. But, it's not a stable one either.
What I am saying is that even though it "trippled" for that specific game, P2P as a whole is in a LOT better shape. I am willing to bet that lotor's "trippled" revenu is still less than Rift's subscription revenu at this point.
I know you weren't necessarily against me.
Now, I want to point something out (not necessarily to you) that this does not mean that F2P was more successful for LoTRO than their box + sub fee system (for the first year or two). It's important to point out that Turbine loves to misrepresent numbers. For example, when they first launched they said they were the second biggest MMO (omitting the North America part). Then, when people called them out on it they added the North America bit.
The F2P transition took a game that was dying and then increased its revenue, but has those numbers continued or has it died down compared to when it went F2P? I haven't heard much about it lately - and Turbine is is quick to toot its horn with misleading vagueness. Dungeons & Dragons Online -which also had seen success with the change- was limping along almost immediately after launching. Turbine tried to attach a $15 fee to that game, which was a huge joke.
So many people point to Turbine as some kind of great MMO developer, but in reality -and this is from someone that subscribes to Asheron's Call- they're no better than SOE. They just have better PR.
F2P is a nothing more than a bubble. It'll pop. And, all these companies that made the massive move to it (like EA) will suffer.
And how do you know that?
In 2012, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1. In terms of revenue, F2p is making as much as P2P and growing from 2009 to 2012.
All i see is a trend for more F2P. If indeed it is a bubble, show me some evidence.
Do you have a source for that? I was under the impression that there were vastly more subscribers in WoW, EVE, Rift, than there are ftpers in all other MMO's combined.
Thats not even counting the subscribers in said "ftp" games.
Again? It has been posted numerous time. Google is your friend.
"Subscription-based MMOs have been on a decline in the US, dropping from 8.5MM in December 2009 to 6.7MM in October 2012. F2P, on the other hand, has been growing from 7.5MM in 2007 to 39.5MM in October 2012."
"The good news is that in 2012, F2P MMOs made more than their P2P counterparts, capturing the majority of the MMO US market’s revenue. The tricky part lies in how to capture and replicate this success."
You do realise that the only confirmed P2P numbers they included are WoW right? Not Rift, not EVE, not all of the "F2P" (which still have a substantial subscription) games. The article should read "WoW", not "subscription based. Seriously though, read the data behind their study. The only P2P game they confirm they took into account is WoW, which makes sense, seeing as they are the only game (aside form EVE) who announces their actual sub numbers.
Which is quite telling actually, of the popularity of WoW in the US being insanly strong after all these years.
EDIT - After looking at thier data further, they are also including browser base FTP MMOs (a la farmville)...which quite frankly, invalidates their study in this discussion.
Haven't read the study and don't really care about it, but the number don't add up.
Even if the number are accurate, wow does not have 8.5 million in the US alone, which is where apparently the study was looking at, so it has to have been looking at other MMO's besides WoW as well.
I consider farmville and MMO, not the same type surely but is there are thousands of people you can interact with in a game setting. A social MMO, yes but still an MMO.
edit - lotro wasn't dying in any way sahpe or form when they switched from p2p to f2p. They were steady and in the black. They switched for the same reason EQ switched, that being their other game did well on f2p.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
F2P is a nothing more than a bubble. It'll pop. And, all these companies that made the massive move to it (like EA) will suffer.
And how do you know that?
In 2012, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1. In terms of revenue, F2p is making as much as P2P and growing from 2009 to 2012.
All i see is a trend for more F2P. If indeed it is a bubble, show me some evidence.
Please remember I said this when it happens that way you'll realize there are people who know what their talking about.
I found plenty of sources for comapnies stating that thier MMOs were generating more revenu as FTP+Cash shop, than when they were just sub based. That does not mean FTP MMOs in general generated more revenu than WoW+EVE+Rift combined, nor out numvber them (esp 6 to 1, unless someone can provide a source).
There is no doubt that FTP is an excellet option if your MMO was not doing well enough to keep players subscribed, but that does not mean its the "better" option for developers, it just means its the better option if your MMO is lacking content/functionality.
Can you point to those sources? Having said that I'm not denying that f2p is a viable business model 'now'. But, it's not a stable one either.
What I am saying is that even though it "trippled" for that specific game, P2P as a whole is in a LOT better shape. I am willing to bet that lotor's "trippled" revenu is still less than Rift's subscription revenu at this point.
I know you weren't necessarily against me.
Now, I want to point something out (not necessarily to you) that this does not mean that F2P was more successful for LoTRO than their box + sub fee system (for the first year or two). It's important to point out that Turbine loves to misrepresent numbers. For example, when they first launched they said they were the second biggest MMO (omitting the North America part). Then, when people called them out on it they added the North America bit.
The F2P transition took a game that was dying and then increased its revenue, but has those numbers continued or has it died down compared to when it went F2P? I haven't heard much about it lately - and Turbine is is quick to toot its horn with misleading vagueness. Dungeons & Dragons Online -which also had seen success with the change- was limping along almost immediately after launching. Turbine tried to attach a $15 fee to that game, which was a huge joke.
So many people point to Turbine as some kind of great MMO developer, but in reality -and this is from someone that subscribes to Asheron's Call- they're no better than SOE. They just have better PR.
You and I are saying the exact same thing, perhaps you have me confused for another poster? In any event, I agree with what you just said.
F2P is a nothing more than a bubble. It'll pop. And, all these companies that made the massive move to it (like EA) will suffer.
And how do you know that?
In 2012, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1. In terms of revenue, F2p is making as much as P2P and growing from 2009 to 2012.
All i see is a trend for more F2P. If indeed it is a bubble, show me some evidence.
Do you have a source for that? I was under the impression that there were vastly more subscribers in WoW, EVE, Rift, than there are ftpers in all other MMO's combined.
Thats not even counting the subscribers in said "ftp" games.
Again? It has been posted numerous time. Google is your friend.
"Subscription-based MMOs have been on a decline in the US, dropping from 8.5MM in December 2009 to 6.7MM in October 2012. F2P, on the other hand, has been growing from 7.5MM in 2007 to 39.5MM in October 2012."
"The good news is that in 2012, F2P MMOs made more than their P2P counterparts, capturing the majority of the MMO US market’s revenue. The tricky part lies in how to capture and replicate this success."
You do realise that the only confirmed P2P numbers they included are WoW right? Not Rift, not EVE, not all of the "F2P" (which still have a substantial subscription) games. The article should read "WoW", not "subscription based. Seriously though, read the data behind their study. The only P2P game they confirm they took into account is WoW, which makes sense, seeing as they are the only game (aside form EVE) who announces their actual sub numbers.
Which is quite telling actually, of the popularity of WoW in the US being insanly strong after all these years.
EDIT - After looking at thier data further, they are also including browser base FTP MMOs (a la farmville)...which quite frankly, invalidates their study in this discussion.
Haven't read the study and don't really care about it, but the number don't add up.
Even if the number are accurate, wow does not have 8.5 million in the US alone, which is where apparently the study was looking at, so it has to have been looking at other MMO's besides WoW as well.
I consider farmville and MMO, not the same type surely but is there are thousands of people you can interact with in a game setting. A social MMO, yes but still an MMO.
edit - lotro wasn't dying in any way sahpe or form when they switched from p2p to f2p. They were steady and in the black. They switched for the same reason EQ switched, that being their other game did well on f2p.
The study doesnt say that WoW (or "subscription based)" currently has 8.5mill subs in the US...you really didn't even read it, did you? I am not trying to be sarcastic btw.
F2P is a nothing more than a bubble. It'll pop. And, all these companies that made the massive move to it (like EA) will suffer.
And how do you know that?
In 2012, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1. In terms of revenue, F2p is making as much as P2P and growing from 2009 to 2012.
All i see is a trend for more F2P. If indeed it is a bubble, show me some evidence.
Do you have a source for that? I was under the impression that there were vastly more subscribers in WoW, EVE, Rift, than there are ftpers in all other MMO's combined.
Thats not even counting the subscribers in said "ftp" games.
Again? It has been posted numerous time. Google is your friend.
"Subscription-based MMOs have been on a decline in the US, dropping from 8.5MM in December 2009 to 6.7MM in October 2012. F2P, on the other hand, has been growing from 7.5MM in 2007 to 39.5MM in October 2012."
"The good news is that in 2012, F2P MMOs made more than their P2P counterparts, capturing the majority of the MMO US market’s revenue. The tricky part lies in how to capture and replicate this success."
You do realise that the only confirmed P2P numbers they included are WoW right? Not Rift, not EVE, not all of the "F2P" (which still have a substantial subscription) games. The article should read "WoW", not "subscription based. Seriously though, read the data behind their study. The only P2P game they confirm they took into account is WoW, which makes sense, seeing as they are the only game (aside form EVE) who announces their actual sub numbers.
Which is quite telling actually, of the popularity of WoW in the US being insanly strong after all these years.
EDIT - After looking at thier data further, they are also including browser base FTP MMOs (a la farmville)...which quite frankly, invalidates their study in this discussion.
Haven't read the study and don't really care about it, but the number don't add up.
Even if the number are accurate, wow does not have 8.5 million in the US alone, which is where apparently the study was looking at, so it has to have been looking at other MMO's besides WoW as well.
I consider farmville and MMO, not the same type surely but is there are thousands of people you can interact with in a game setting. A social MMO, yes but still an MMO.
edit - lotro wasn't dying in any way sahpe or form when they switched from p2p to f2p. They were steady and in the black. They switched for the same reason EQ switched, that being their other game did well on f2p.
The study doesnt say that WoW (or "subscription based)" currently has 8.5mill subs in the US...you really didn't even read it, did you? I am not trying to be sarcastic btw.
The quote from Nari is talking about U.S. and stated 8.5 million. You stated that the only stated p2p is WoW.
Wow does not have 8.5 million in the U.S.
Those statements conflict with each other.
edit - and no didn't bother reading it. I actually couldn't care less what the ratio is and knowing it would not improve my life in any way, so IMO it is a waste of time.
I'm more interested in the actual debate.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by Beatnik59 I see an industry so desperate to get more "blood," that they are willing to go to extremes to get more people hooked on their failing concepts.Free to play is all about turning casuals into hardcore junkies. And don't let the PR fool you, this industry--like the casino industry--lives on the hardcore junkies. It lives on the hardcore roleplayers and immersion junkies, the hardcore levellers and achievers. They have items in the item store to cater to all these types (powerups, costumes, emotes). But what they want is for you to lose it, and lose it in splurges.But in order to root out a hardcore junkie, you have to first give away a "sample" to the curious. You cater to their subconscious levers. You make it easy for the ones with low impulse control to spend more than they ought. And then, when there are no more new junkies to find, you close down, blow the game up, and start up another MMO that works the psychological angles better than the earlier one.
Brilliant, thought provoking post!
Originally posted by Warley F2P is a nothing more than a bubble. It'll pop. And, all these companies that made the massive move to it (like EA) will suffer.
Very interesting possibility. Bravo. You forgot to add SOE.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
F2P is a nothing more than a bubble. It'll pop. And, all these companies that made the massive move to it (like EA) will suffer.
And how do you know that?
In 2012, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1. In terms of revenue, F2p is making as much as P2P and growing from 2009 to 2012.
All i see is a trend for more F2P. If indeed it is a bubble, show me some evidence.
Do you have a source for that? I was under the impression that there were vastly more subscribers in WoW, EVE, Rift, than there are ftpers in all other MMO's combined.
Thats not even counting the subscribers in said "ftp" games.
Again? It has been posted numerous time. Google is your friend.
"Subscription-based MMOs have been on a decline in the US, dropping from 8.5MM in December 2009 to 6.7MM in October 2012. F2P, on the other hand, has been growing from 7.5MM in 2007 to 39.5MM in October 2012."
"The good news is that in 2012, F2P MMOs made more than their P2P counterparts, capturing the majority of the MMO US market’s revenue. The tricky part lies in how to capture and replicate this success."
You do realise that the only confirmed P2P numbers they included are WoW right? Not Rift, not EVE, not all of the "F2P" (which still have a substantial subscription) games. The article should read "WoW", not "subscription based. Seriously though, read the data behind their study. The only P2P game they confirm they took into account is WoW, which makes sense, seeing as they are the only game (aside form EVE) who announces their actual sub numbers.
Which is quite telling actually, of the popularity of WoW in the US being insanly strong after all these years.
EDIT - After looking at thier data further, they are also including browser base FTP MMOs (a la farmville)...which quite frankly, invalidates their study in this discussion.
Haven't read the study and don't really care about it, but the number don't add up.
Even if the number are accurate, wow does not have 8.5 million in the US alone, which is where apparently the study was looking at, so it has to have been looking at other MMO's besides WoW as well.
I consider farmville and MMO, not the same type surely but is there are thousands of people you can interact with in a game setting. A social MMO, yes but still an MMO.
edit - lotro wasn't dying in any way sahpe or form when they switched from p2p to f2p. They were steady and in the black. They switched for the same reason EQ switched, that being their other game did well on f2p.
The study doesnt say that WoW (or "subscription based)" currently has 8.5mill subs in the US...you really didn't even read it, did you? I am not trying to be sarcastic btw.
The quote from Nari is talking about U.S. and stated 8.5 million. You stated that the only stated p2p is WoW.
Wow does not have 8.5 million in the U.S.
Those statements conflict with each other.
Dude, the 8.5mil number is form 2010, when WoW had over 14 million subs globally (excluding China). Please actually read the chart, it in no way says 8.5mil in 2012/2013.
Comments
People that use /close thread as if they know more then anyone else are annoying, especially when they are wrong and simply bleating an industry line.
Sub based MMORPGs in 2013 still control more than half of the market.
Of the other half, the vast majority of MMORPGs still offer subs as an option, a popular option at that.
We are now even seeing the start of previously F2P only games offering a sub option, due to the demand of players.
Personally, I believe that if the sub was totally removed tommorrow the vast majority of so called 'F2P' games would collapse without that revenue as a prop.
How many MMORPGs worth playing exist in the West that are purely cash shop supported?
Why o' why are so many players behind this? Why would you choose to support a model which at it's core is only loyal to it's cash shop instead of creating an excellent game peeps will actually want to subsdcribe to?
To me it is black and white and rather simple.
B2P/F2P Model = #1 goal of the developer above all else, get players to bust out their wallet and funnel to cash shop. Game quality and long term commitment suffers...
P2p model = #1 goal of the developer above all else, create a game that is good enough to warrant a loyal sub base and continue to improve it to maintain subs. Game quality improves and players commit longterm otherwise game goes F2P.
Unless time has no value to you, the F2P model equates to wasted time due to roadblocks put before us to get us to bust out our wallets.
Unfortunately MMO's are turning into single player games with endings. Buy an MMO play it for a couple months exhaust the content and move on. Console and shooter fans, this may be fine but those whom prefer long term commitment in their MMO, no so much.
^This
You are no better than him, support your claims by some kind of data, last i heard FTP revenue total was higher than sub which just means there are more people playing FTP games and the amount spent is roughly the same as in a sub game.
You are also asuming that just because they offer an option it means a large part of the population are choosing to sub which for all we know could be false.
Most people that play FT¨P mmos arent gona pay a sub, thats the whole reason they are there playing these games. They want to choose what to pay for.
i have recently changed my stance on this and I am much more open to free to play games, not because i like the model ( i really dont like it) but because sub games are just so subpar nowadays with not enough content to satisfy even a casual gamer. I hate paying for a game up front and paying a sub fee for months just to get bored because the devs were lazy and didnt make a thorough game in the first place that could hold someones interest so if I decide to quit paying I no longer can play the game. If i ever want to go back and check out the game in future content updates i must pony up some more money just to play a game i have already bought.
so despite not liking free to play games i play them because i can still play them even if I dont spend the money every month. one reason i like ddo and think more games should go to that type of content. buy it once it is yours forever and you can still play the content you did buy without a sub fee. Ive got no problems spending money on something I enjoy but Im not gonna spend money just to play a game if the content isnt there. If im relegated to running the same content over and over i should not have to continue paying for that content over and over. When devs quit making single player coop games that you finish up in a week until the next patch then my attitude might change but as of right now why should i pay every month if I dont get content every month. some games you can wait 3 to 6 months for a content update which just gets boring to me.
Thats not how it works. A game developer with a sub can introduce artificial grind to keep you on the game doing the same thing for months without any real content updates so you give them more money for nothing.
At least ftp companies are not hiding this.
Both parties are idealising their chosen business model. In practice neither of them work as advertised
As far as i see they are both two sides of the same coin.
Really?! You mean people want stuff for free, rather than pay!?
You couldn't come to this conclusion on your own? NO FREAKING DUH!
I prefer subscription based. They are usually the best games on the market.
Look, my problem isn't really what you have said here... it is really just that you have come in, misrepresented what I said in your first sentence, and demanded I do something that you yourself don't (the providing of data).
If you want to chat about the topic that's cool, but I cba with some kind of 'intellectual' pissing contest.
If I am honest, I don't even know why we are all talking about MMORPGs in this thread... the OP's link wasn't even about MMORPGs... it was about mobile gaming. If we are gonna take EA's (of all peoples) endorsement of F2P for mobiles as relevant to the MMORPG market then surely we should be looking at Zynga's collapse and the like as well?
This thread should be just about mobile gaming F2P though really.
Again? It has been posted numerous time. Google is your friend.
http://www.superdataresearch.com/us-free-to-play-does-it-pay-to-switch/
And i quote
"Subscription-based MMOs have been on a decline in the US, dropping from 8.5MM in December 2009 to 6.7MM in October 2012. F2P, on the other hand, has been growing from 7.5MM in 2007 to 39.5MM in October 2012."
"The good news is that in 2012, F2P MMOs made more than their P2P counterparts, capturing the majority of the MMO US market’s revenue. The tricky part lies in how to capture and replicate this success."
Because i can look at such games, and decide if it is fun?
If a game is not fun, f2p or p2p .. i am out of there. If a game is fun & free, is there a reason why i should not be "behind" it? I care very little about dev motivation. If a game entertains me, that is what i will play.
Agree with you on all points.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
His very first line says gamers are speaking with their wallet ! ROFLMAO,talk about Hypocrite 101.Taht doesn't sound free to play what so ever,it sounds lie ka model they see as making a lot more money,so they want to push it onto everyone.
If you ever see a game made for f2p,it looks cheap both visually and lacking in content.So they can invest far less,develope in a much shorter time,fewer employees and becuase there si no depth or content,they have less bugs as well.So you end up with the shallow shell of a game.
So waht happens then?People play for a bit,then all quit.The only reason this model is not taking severe heat is becuase with no subscription fee there are no numbers to post about how many gamers leave the game.Also the players thjat spend no money,don't care to complain because they were playing for free anyhow.
Let's assume a lot of F2p devs tell us the truth,example they like to post numbers like 10-100 million players.Then you go in the game and it is like a ghost town,nobody playing.With no sub fees,devs can hide the truth about their game.
These games are NOT defined by the simple 50 cents a day,people waste far more money than that.Tehy are defined by quality,yet this EA rep mentions NOTHING about quality.He is only pushing what makes EA more money.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It is more like ""Nick Earl says market has spoken in favor of free-to-play, and MMO market data agrees".
Not only F2P outnumber P2P players 6 to 1, P2P lost 21% of their players from 2009 to 2012.
I vote for removing money on planet Earth.
Then all that remains is...
Play.
You do realise that the only confirmed P2P numbers they included are WoW right? Not Rift, not EVE, not all of the "F2P" (which still have a substantial subscription) games. The article should read "WoW", not "subscription based. Seriously though, read the data behind their study. The only P2P game they confirm they took into account is WoW, which makes sense, seeing as they are the only game (aside form EVE) who announces their actual sub numbers.
Which is quite telling actually, of the popularity of WoW in the US being insanly strong after all these years.
EDIT - After looking at thier data further, they are also including browser base FTP MMOs (a la farmville)...which quite frankly, invalidates their study in this discussion.
I know you weren't necessarily against me.
Now, I want to point something out (not necessarily to you) that this does not mean that F2P was more successful for LoTRO than their box + sub fee system (for the first year or two). It's important to point out that Turbine loves to misrepresent numbers. For example, when they first launched they said they were the second biggest MMO (omitting the North America part). Then, when people called them out on it they added the North America bit.
The F2P transition took a game that was dying and then increased its revenue, but has those numbers continued or has it died down compared to when it went F2P? I haven't heard much about it lately - and Turbine is is quick to toot its horn with misleading vagueness. Dungeons & Dragons Online -which also had seen success with the change- was limping along almost immediately after launching. Turbine tried to attach a $15 fee to that game, which was a huge joke.
So many people point to Turbine as some kind of great MMO developer, but in reality -and this is from someone that subscribes to Asheron's Call- they're no better than SOE. They just have better PR.
Haven't read the study and don't really care about it, but the number don't add up.
Even if the number are accurate, wow does not have 8.5 million in the US alone, which is where apparently the study was looking at, so it has to have been looking at other MMO's besides WoW as well.
I consider farmville and MMO, not the same type surely but is there are thousands of people you can interact with in a game setting. A social MMO, yes but still an MMO.
edit - lotro wasn't dying in any way sahpe or form when they switched from p2p to f2p. They were steady and in the black. They switched for the same reason EQ switched, that being their other game did well on f2p.
You and I are saying the exact same thing, perhaps you have me confused for another poster? In any event, I agree with what you just said.
The study doesnt say that WoW (or "subscription based)" currently has 8.5mill subs in the US...you really didn't even read it, did you? I am not trying to be sarcastic btw.
The quote from Nari is talking about U.S. and stated 8.5 million. You stated that the only stated p2p is WoW.
Wow does not have 8.5 million in the U.S.
Those statements conflict with each other.
edit - and no didn't bother reading it. I actually couldn't care less what the ratio is and knowing it would not improve my life in any way, so IMO it is a waste of time.
I'm more interested in the actual debate.
Brilliant, thought provoking post!
Very interesting possibility. Bravo. You forgot to add SOE.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Dude, the 8.5mil number is form 2010, when WoW had over 14 million subs globally (excluding China). Please actually read the chart, it in no way says 8.5mil in 2012/2013.