To me the definition of "Pay-to-Win" has always been something in an MMO that let you gain an in-game advantage. In almost all F2P/B2P MMOs you can get some of the best gear in the game with real life money, usually by converting real life money to game currency and buying epics. For example, I can gear my character in GW2 or Neverwinter in full "epics" with real life money.
I keep hearing players and developers now say that if you can get this gear in game with game currency, it isn't "Pay-to-Win". When did this become the definition become the norm?
If I can get the best gear in the game with real life money, and I can get it with in-game currency. It is still "Pay-to-Win". Because usually you can buy in-game currency with real life money.
Star Citizen and Chris Roberts recently took this approach. In Star Citizen you can buy all the ships with real life money. When people said it was "Pay-to-Win", RSI said it isn't "Pay-to-Win" because you can buy the ships in game.
So am I wrong? What is the definition of "Pay-to-Win"?
You said this already yourself if you buy ingame something cash shop and get a advantage over other players nomatter how small even a bagpack space is pay2win.
So now Rift is selling gear for money directly. And their argument is it can be earned in game and "wont be the best gear in the game". But you can also earn the best gear in game within the game, so what is stopping them from selling it?
The slippery slope people said wouldn't happened is already happening. And all of us are in it, whether we like it or not.
I play sinds '99 mmo's and ive not spent 1 eurocent in cashops or DLC ever so im not in it:)
I'm with you OP. Any sale of items/chants/boosters that gives you an advantage over players that don't have them is pay to win.
People are trying to cloud the issue by saying that it's okay because the advantage isn't permanent, but that the advantage doesn't last forever does not mean it never existed. If it takes those who grind the old fashioned way a month to catch up to cash shop purchasers, those who go the pay to win route still have an advantage during that month. If I start playing neverwinter a year from now and buy everything I can, I might not have an advantage over those who play now but I certainly will have an edge over those who start when I do and don't spend a dime in the cash shop, until they finish their grind an get on an equal footing. Just because it's possible to grind for something doesn't mean it's okay to sell it in a cash shop.
I haven't read all 32 pages (but I plan on hiring a Chinese gold farmer to read them to me later)....but what I will say to OP is that you're analysis is essentially correct.
What we're seeing is Developers rationalizing their decisions. Deep down they loathe P2W just like the rest of us...so when the suits say 'we need more money, make it happen', the devs change the definition of winning. It's like when the US government says 'we don't torture', but had to change the definition of torture so as not to violate the statement and to rationalize the misgivings of conscience.
Also, I thought of a good analogy as to why this p2w is lame.
Imagine yourself and a friend playing the board game Monopoly. Another friend volunteers to serve as the game's banker. So you set about playing the game, rolling dice and acquiring properties. Suddenly your player friend pulls a $20 bill out of his wallet and gives it to the banker to purchase Boardwalk and Park Place. The banker agrees. He further says that you can also pay him real money if you'd like to buy properties on the board rather than roll for them.....
Well, you refuse because you want to play the game.
I think we can all agree that P2W is bad in the above analogy. You could further expand this analogy to chess where one side is allowed to buy an extra Queen for a nice fee. Sure, in all of these analogies, you can gain the same benefit through regular play. But it really isn't fair to the intent of the game, nor to the player attempting to play the game how it was meant to be played.
The better f2p models work like this: you pay money to have a choice of which Monopoly piece to use, or you pay a money to have your chess pieces look like Lord of the Rings characters. Neither of these affects game play and are quite fair.
My definition of Pay to Win would have to stay along the lines of players getting items not eligible through in game means and/or if there are in game means to get them with a low rate or able to right out buy them with real money unless you're buying through another player and not the system. I think that people selling their items for real money is totally wrong and the people that run the game should try to put a stop to it but it's going to happen that doesn't make the game pay to win though. It's like someone buying money from a gold farmer and then another person cries pay to win.... No this isn't an example of pay to win although the person that bought the money and the person selling it should be punished, it wasn't the company that runs the game that did it. So basically if you have a cash shop that offers significant advantages to players that pay real money it's pay to win. If you have players going through back alley key logging sites it isn't pay to win.
Nari, you started a thread to discuss data from that company. We concluded it was bullshit. It claims 1 out of every 6 persons in the USA (including infants and the elderly) are playing MMOs. I know about 400 people off the top of my head, and not one of them is playing an MMO; and I doubt their infants and grandparents are playing, either.
LOL ... you are just making things up.
And in my household 3 out of 4 play MMO. All anecdotal ... non-evidence just like yours.
Sticking head in the sand ignoring data ... and note that this company SELLs such data. Do you think i will believe a professional company or some random dude on the internet?
You just have no counter evidence.
Ok should have looked at it earlier that research is pointless. We all knew that there were more players logging on in F2P MMO's, what does it tell us that's new? It actually says you cant say that F2P is generating more money. Not only that the definistion of what is F2P and P2P is left wide open.
Another poster said I was wrong to call WoW a hybrid revenue model as it had a cash shop that was not as developed as a F2P cash shop. Having a cash shop sets you down the hybrid path, same as a F2P MMO having a subscription sets that MMO on the hybrid path. Some MMO's are more hybrid than others, but they are still hybrid.
Yes you can. It said very clearly that games with a F2P option is generating more money than P2P-only games.
Pay to Win has always been a feature of MMOs. The change is in who you pay. Back in the 90s and early turn of the century, Pay 2 win meant buying an already leveled character from the player who leveled him or rare items...usually on eBay,
Then some people noticed that there was a market for that and started approaching it as a business. They sold you pre-leveled toons, or power leveled yours or sold you in-game gold or rare items. A whole industry was created in China.
Then the developers themselves got into the act and decided they wanted all this extra profit. Now they have institutionalized it.
They now sell you the special rare items directly but this is no different than buying gold from China and then using it in the AH to get that special rare item. Another common cash shop item is experience accelerators. That is just a milder version of power-leveling services for those who want that sort of thing. And if it wasn't clear enough, they have also turned all cash shop customers into "gold sellers" by allowing the trade of this special cash shop currency for in-game coins.
People talk as if this is a new trend when in fact is just the same old shit organized and assimilated into the MMO itself.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Originally posted by GroovyFlower You said this already yourself if you buy ingame something cash shop and get a advantage over other players nomatter how small even a bagpack space is pay2win.
IMO, bigger backpacks and more bank space are not P2W, although they are certainly "nickel and dime" strategies.
Originally posted by Drakephire Also, I thought of a good analogy as to why this p2w is lame. Imagine yourself and a friend playing the board game Monopoly. Another friend volunteers to serve as the game's banker. So you set about playing the game, rolling dice and acquiring properties. Suddenly your player friend pulls a $20 bill out of his wallet and gives it to the banker to purchase Boardwalk and Park Place. The banker agrees. He further says that you can also pay him real money if you'd like to buy properties on the board rather than roll for them..... Well, you refuse because you want to play the game. I think we can all agree that P2W is bad in the above analogy. You could further expand this analogy to chess where one side is allowed to buy an extra Queen for a nice fee. Sure, in all of these analogies, you can gain the same benefit through regular play. But it really isn't fair to the intent of the game, nor to the player attempting to play the game how it was meant to be played.The better f2p models work like this: you pay money to have a choice of which Monopoly piece to use, or you pay a money to have your chess pieces look like Lord of the Rings characters. Neither of these affects game play and are quite fair.
I fully agree. Bravo.
Originally posted by Iselin Pay to Win has always been a feature of MMOs. The change is in who you pay. Back in the 90s and early turn of the century, Pay 2 win meant buying an already leveled character from the player who leveled him or rare items...usually on eBay,...People talk as if this is a new trend when in fact is just the same old shit organized and assimilated into the MMO itself.
Your points are true. Consider, though, that In the past, everyone was on equal footing and a player could quietly pay for an advantage; but, today, players have to pay just to get on equal footing.
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
Originally posted by Iselin Pay to Win has always been a feature of MMOs. The change is in who you pay. Back in the 90s and early turn of the century, Pay 2 win meant buying an already leveled character from the player who leveled him or rare items...usually on eBay,
...People talk as if this is a new trend when in fact is just the same old shit organized and assimilated into the MMO itself.
Your points are true. Consider, though, that In the past, everyone was on equal footing and a player could quietly pay for an advantage; but, today, players have to pay just to get on equal footing.
Of course. That is the basic difference between the barter system or the underground economy and mass-marketed consumerism. Now it is organized and they have given a lot of thought to maximizing profits.
Most of them offer PvP, have you noticed? There is no greater incentive to spend $ than to level the PvP playing field.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Pay to Win is essentially paying to get items your susposed to play to acheive. MMORPG's still games.
You run a marathon and one guy pulls out some cash and gets in a taxi and his time is allowed. Of course everyone can eventually get to the finish line but this guy never competed in the race and is counted just the same.
The main problem with this is it sends the message to developers that they can give us another method of reaping money from us. What happens next is that regular play becomes so tedious that your going to pay out right or at least pay for help to get the top items.
MMORPG's are supposed to be about adventures played along with friends/strangers/solo in a world together. Not nickled and dimed at every step to try to keep up with the jones.
The genre is already in bad shape with lack of risk and creatively.
Nari, you started a thread to discuss data from that company. We concluded it was bullshit. It claims 1 out of every 6 persons in the USA (including infants and the elderly) are playing MMOs. I know about 400 people off the top of my head, and not one of them is playing an MMO; and I doubt their infants and grandparents are playing, either.
LOL ... you are just making things up.
And in my household 3 out of 4 play MMO. All anecdotal ... non-evidence just like yours.
Sticking head in the sand ignoring data ... and note that this company SELLs such data. Do you think i will believe a professional company or some random dude on the internet?
You just have no counter evidence.
Ok should have looked at it earlier that research is pointless. We all knew that there were more players logging on in F2P MMO's, what does it tell us that's new? It actually says you cant say that F2P is generating more money. Not only that the definistion of what is F2P and P2P is left wide open.
Another poster said I was wrong to call WoW a hybrid revenue model as it had a cash shop that was not as developed as a F2P cash shop. Having a cash shop sets you down the hybrid path, same as a F2P MMO having a subscription sets that MMO on the hybrid path. Some MMO's are more hybrid than others, but they are still hybrid.
Yes you can. It said very clearly that games with a F2P option is generating more money than P2P-only games.
Do you dispute that statement?
That study just shows some population figures and then says that F2P is making more, so yes I am. That is not a revenue graph. In fact they say in that piece:
"But traffic alone is not a definitive measure of success. Overall spending may follow a very different trend depending on a game’s life cycle, player base and genre."
As I have said elsewhere, we need to see what MMO's are being put into which dataset before these statements can be even made about player populations. Is WoW with its cash shop in the P2P section? I would imagine so, but we don't know. Is GW2 which has a huge new following in the F2P section? I would dispute GW2 is F2P as it is a B2P game. So without that detail that study tells us very little.
Unless you have a drum to bang about F2P like you do, I am not sure anyone would find this as relevant as you. The models have changed, when we talk about P2P and F2P now, we are talking about a range of revenue options, not the clear cut models we had up to a couple of years ago.
Nari, you started a thread to discuss data from that company. We concluded it was bullshit. It claims 1 out of every 6 persons in the USA (including infants and the elderly) are playing MMOs. I know about 400 people off the top of my head, and not one of them is playing an MMO; and I doubt their infants and grandparents are playing, either.
LOL ... you are just making things up.
And in my household 3 out of 4 play MMO. All anecdotal ... non-evidence just like yours.
Sticking head in the sand ignoring data ... and note that this company SELLs such data. Do you think i will believe a professional company or some random dude on the internet?
You just have no counter evidence.
Ok should have looked at it earlier that research is pointless. We all knew that there were more players logging on in F2P MMO's, what does it tell us that's new? It actually says you cant say that F2P is generating more money. Not only that the definistion of what is F2P and P2P is left wide open.
Another poster said I was wrong to call WoW a hybrid revenue model as it had a cash shop that was not as developed as a F2P cash shop. Having a cash shop sets you down the hybrid path, same as a F2P MMO having a subscription sets that MMO on the hybrid path. Some MMO's are more hybrid than others, but they are still hybrid.
Yes you can. It said very clearly that games with a F2P option is generating more money than P2P-only games.
Do you dispute that statement?
That study just shows some population figures and then says that F2P is making more, so yes I am. That is not a revenue graph. In fact they say in that piece:
"But traffic alone is not a definitive measure of success. Overall spending may follow a very different trend depending on a game’s life cycle, player base and genre."
As I have said elsewhere, we need to see what MMO's are being put into which dataset before these statements can be even made about player populations. Is WoW with its cash shop in the P2P section? I would imagine so, but we don't know. Is GW2 which has a huge new following in the F2P section? I would dispute GW2 is F2P as it is a B2P game. So without that detail that study tells us very little.
Unless you have a drum to bang about F2P like you do, I am not sure anyone would find this as relevant as you. The models have changed, when we talk about P2P and F2P now, we are talking about a range of revenue options, not the clear cut models we had up to a couple of years ago.
You miss this sentence?
"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."
Then those sentences do contradict. And no answer to how you can be so certain of such studies when we don't know how they count a MMO's as P2P or F2P.
Originally posted by Scot Then those sentences do contradict. And no answer to how you can be so certain of such studies when we don't know how they count a MMO's as P2P or F2P.
Certain? Nothing is certain in life. But this is 1000x better evidence than some random dude's opinion on the internet.
And whatever definition they use for P2P or F2P is fine with me.
Certain? Nothing is certain in life. But this is 1000x better evidence than some random dude's opinion on the internet.
LOL..........the irony in this statement.
I would like to point out that your evidence is the analysis of a set of dubious data.
i.e. Someone's opinion.
If you are confused between opinions, and data owned by a company who is not showing you .....
well .. you are just some random dude on the internet. If you want to stick your head in the sand, it is your prerogative. I, however, do not have to do the same.
Are we still talking about this two "for entertainment only" reports about F2P? They have no realistic bearing what so ever. Why do I say that? The info they claim to represent would have to come from specific revenue numbers from virtually every MMO company out there. Even if they did have those numbers, which they don't, they either stole them or are breaking an agreement with said companies. Even NCSoft who is very public about revenue is not so sepcific with thier numbers as to make the claim those "reports" do.
I applaud them for putting together so much public data but there are far too many variables and figures, the important ones, to be considered serious report on the subject of F2P MMOs.
The problems with how they get their data when MMO companies like any other company do not give out much in the way of data is one we have always had in MMO's. In particular how much money they are making is impossible to tell, even companies which release annual figures for investors should have their figures taken with a pinch of salt.
The problem with how they are defining P2P and F2P is a new one. Is GW2 a B2P MMO going to be P2P or F2P. As questions like that could swing the result one way or the other in the favour of P2P or F2P they are of crucial importance.
Long term item transaction will be the "winner" of this contest, if it is not already the true winner. The cash shop which now sells subscriptions in F2P MMOs and new content chapters in both types of MMO, along with game altering and fluff items is king.
The problems with how they get their data when MMO companies like any other company do not give out much in the way of data is one we have always had in MMO's. In particular how much money they are making is impossible to tell, even companies which release annual figures for investors should have their figures taken with a pinch of salt.
The problem with how they are defining P2P and F2P is a new one. Is GW2 a B2P MMO going to be P2P or F2P. As questions like that could swing the result one way or the other in the favour of P2P or F2P they are of crucial importance.
Long term item transaction will be the "winner" of this contest, if it is not already the true winner. The cash shop which now sells subscriptions in F2P MMOs and new content chapters in both types of MMO, along with game altering and fluff items is king.
wow .. run-on sentence galore.
The issue is not how they get their data. They are selling their data to MMO companies, so i doubt the quality is bad.
The issue is that you are not willing to shelf out money to see the details, and try to imagine problems.
Let me put it this way .. whatever way they define P2P ... it would only include games that are sub-only. Sub-only games are losing out in the market. It does not take a genius to see that. And you say it too "long term item transaction" will be the winner. That is F2P.
The problems with how they get their data when MMO companies like any other company do not give out much in the way of data is one we have always had in MMO's. In particular how much money they are making is impossible to tell, even companies which release annual figures for investors should have their figures taken with a pinch of salt.
The problem with how they are defining P2P and F2P is a new one. Is GW2 a B2P MMO going to be P2P or F2P. As questions like that could swing the result one way or the other in the favour of P2P or F2P they are of crucial importance.
Long term item transaction will be the "winner" of this contest, if it is not already the true winner. The cash shop which now sells subscriptions in F2P MMOs and new content chapters in both types of MMO, along with game altering and fluff items is king.
wow .. run-on sentence galore.
The issue is not how they get their data. They are selling their data to MMO companies, so i doubt the quality is bad.
The issue is that you are not willing to shelf out money to see the details, and try to imagine problems.
Let me put it this way .. whatever way they define P2P ... it would only include games that are sub-only. Sub-only games are losing out in the market. It does not take a genius to see that. And you say it too "long term item transaction" will be the winner. That is F2P.
Nari,
Problem is what you are doing is resorting to arguement by false-authority. While I wouldn't be surprised if the statement was factualy accurate, the evidence provided is pretty weak at best....
- X makes Y statement
- X claims itself as an authoritative export.
- X claims z other organizations consider it an expert.
- X provides no information of it's methods of data collection/tabulation for independant verfification nor even a way to verify other organizations relationship with it.
I see this in my industry all the time. All that's really required of X to do so is some cheap web hosting, an e-mail box/phone number and around $200 to establish an LLC.
Usualy X isn't completely bogus but the methods of data collection tend to be deeply flawed and highly suspect at best. They are also usualy calculated to sell some business/consulting service that conveniently happens to match the latest industry "buzzword". Sometimes thier "customers" are even organizations they've provided FREE service for (in order to list as customers).
In other words, the source you cite isn't some "random dude on the internet" but neither is it one that should inspire a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of it's claims. This is especialy relevant given what we know about the difficulty in trying to collect the type of data you would need to establish such claims with a high degree of confidence.
Note, I say this DESPITE the fact that I suspect F2P may be generating significantly more revenue then P2P and it's certainly comething that all the industry talking heads seem to believe.
Bottom line is that the access to data to make such claims accross the industry as a whole with any real degree of confidence just isn't in ANYONES hands.....and honestly it's probably LESS in these peoples hands then it is in many of the publishers internal data. Sometimes in business, individuals are simply looking to some source that they can cite as an authority to justify the decisions that they want to make, in case those decisions don't work out well.
Problem is what you are doing is resorting to arguement by false-authority. While I wouldn't be surprised if the statement was factualy accurate, the evidence provided is pretty weak at best....
No. What i am doing is resorting to argument by REAL-authority.
A market research firm that sells analysis and data to game devs is real authority to me (at least better than any random dude on the internet). You can stick your head in the sand but numbers are numbers.
Problem is what you are doing is resorting to arguement by false-authority. While I wouldn't be surprised if the statement was factualy accurate, the evidence provided is pretty weak at best....
No. What i am doing is resorting to argument by REAL-authority.
A market research firm that sells analysis and data to game devs is real authority to me (at least better than any random dude on the internet). You can stick your head in the sand but numbers are numbers.
This is one of the biggest hurdles to any type of meaningful discussion here. This is data that companies pay tens of thousands of dollars for. It sells for that kind of money because companies find the data accurate enough and valuable enough to pay that much. There is no logical reason to believe SuperDataResearch, NewZoo or any of the other major sources are trying to be misleading or dealing with made up numbers. To put "but I believe" as a higher level of credibility over reliable industry data is absurd, yet it's done here all the time. Cite Bartle on MUDs and you get in reply "Who is he to decide that's right?" Cite Quarterly/Annual Shareholder Reports and you get in reply that they're hiding something or the numbers are fudged. Cite a developer on their ARPU/ARPPU and you get in reply that they're not going to give the real numbers or that it is marketing spin.
GM2, that you would call a thoroughly researched industry report "weak" or claim "false authority" to counter information from professionals in the industry is a bit ...odd, no?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Comments
You said this already yourself if you buy ingame something cash shop and get a advantage over other players nomatter how small even a bagpack space is pay2win.
Thats defenition!.
I play sinds '99 mmo's and ive not spent 1 eurocent in cashops or DLC ever so im not in it:)
I'm with you OP. Any sale of items/chants/boosters that gives you an advantage over players that don't have them is pay to win.
People are trying to cloud the issue by saying that it's okay because the advantage isn't permanent, but that the advantage doesn't last forever does not mean it never existed. If it takes those who grind the old fashioned way a month to catch up to cash shop purchasers, those who go the pay to win route still have an advantage during that month. If I start playing neverwinter a year from now and buy everything I can, I might not have an advantage over those who play now but I certainly will have an edge over those who start when I do and don't spend a dime in the cash shop, until they finish their grind an get on an equal footing. Just because it's possible to grind for something doesn't mean it's okay to sell it in a cash shop.
I haven't read all 32 pages (but I plan on hiring a Chinese gold farmer to read them to me later)....but what I will say to OP is that you're analysis is essentially correct.
What we're seeing is Developers rationalizing their decisions. Deep down they loathe P2W just like the rest of us...so when the suits say 'we need more money, make it happen', the devs change the definition of winning. It's like when the US government says 'we don't torture', but had to change the definition of torture so as not to violate the statement and to rationalize the misgivings of conscience.
Also, I thought of a good analogy as to why this p2w is lame.
Imagine yourself and a friend playing the board game Monopoly. Another friend volunteers to serve as the game's banker. So you set about playing the game, rolling dice and acquiring properties. Suddenly your player friend pulls a $20 bill out of his wallet and gives it to the banker to purchase Boardwalk and Park Place. The banker agrees. He further says that you can also pay him real money if you'd like to buy properties on the board rather than roll for them.....
Well, you refuse because you want to play the game.
I think we can all agree that P2W is bad in the above analogy. You could further expand this analogy to chess where one side is allowed to buy an extra Queen for a nice fee. Sure, in all of these analogies, you can gain the same benefit through regular play. But it really isn't fair to the intent of the game, nor to the player attempting to play the game how it was meant to be played.
The better f2p models work like this: you pay money to have a choice of which Monopoly piece to use, or you pay a money to have your chess pieces look like Lord of the Rings characters. Neither of these affects game play and are quite fair.
You laugh at the person that attempts to compare F2P/B2P models with stripping.
Yes you can. It said very clearly that games with a F2P option is generating more money than P2P-only games.
Do you dispute that statement?
Pay to Win has always been a feature of MMOs. The change is in who you pay. Back in the 90s and early turn of the century, Pay 2 win meant buying an already leveled character from the player who leveled him or rare items...usually on eBay,
Then some people noticed that there was a market for that and started approaching it as a business. They sold you pre-leveled toons, or power leveled yours or sold you in-game gold or rare items. A whole industry was created in China.
Then the developers themselves got into the act and decided they wanted all this extra profit. Now they have institutionalized it.
They now sell you the special rare items directly but this is no different than buying gold from China and then using it in the AH to get that special rare item. Another common cash shop item is experience accelerators. That is just a milder version of power-leveling services for those who want that sort of thing. And if it wasn't clear enough, they have also turned all cash shop customers into "gold sellers" by allowing the trade of this special cash shop currency for in-game coins.
People talk as if this is a new trend when in fact is just the same old shit organized and assimilated into the MMO itself.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
IMO, bigger backpacks and more bank space are not P2W, although they are certainly "nickel and dime" strategies.
I fully agree. Bravo.
Your points are true. Consider, though, that In the past, everyone was on equal footing and a player could quietly pay for an advantage; but, today, players have to pay just to get on equal footing.
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
Of course. That is the basic difference between the barter system or the underground economy and mass-marketed consumerism. Now it is organized and they have given a lot of thought to maximizing profits.
Most of them offer PvP, have you noticed? There is no greater incentive to spend $ than to level the PvP playing field.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
People are trying to cloud the situation.
Pay to Win is essentially paying to get items your susposed to play to acheive. MMORPG's still games.
You run a marathon and one guy pulls out some cash and gets in a taxi and his time is allowed. Of course everyone can eventually get to the finish line but this guy never competed in the race and is counted just the same.
The main problem with this is it sends the message to developers that they can give us another method of reaping money from us. What happens next is that regular play becomes so tedious that your going to pay out right or at least pay for help to get the top items.
MMORPG's are supposed to be about adventures played along with friends/strangers/solo in a world together. Not nickled and dimed at every step to try to keep up with the jones.
The genre is already in bad shape with lack of risk and creatively.
That study just shows some population figures and then says that F2P is making more, so yes I am. That is not a revenue graph. In fact they say in that piece:
"But traffic alone is not a definitive measure of success. Overall spending may follow a very different trend depending on a game’s life cycle, player base and genre."
As I have said elsewhere, we need to see what MMO's are being put into which dataset before these statements can be even made about player populations. Is WoW with its cash shop in the P2P section? I would imagine so, but we don't know. Is GW2 which has a huge new following in the F2P section? I would dispute GW2 is F2P as it is a B2P game. So without that detail that study tells us very little.
Unless you have a drum to bang about F2P like you do, I am not sure anyone would find this as relevant as you. The models have changed, when we talk about P2P and F2P now, we are talking about a range of revenue options, not the clear cut models we had up to a couple of years ago.
You miss this sentence?
"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."
So clearly F2P are making more money too.
Certain? Nothing is certain in life. But this is 1000x better evidence than some random dude's opinion on the internet.
And whatever definition they use for P2P or F2P is fine with me.
LOL..........the irony in this statement.
I would like to point out that your evidence is the analysis of a set of dubious data.
i.e. Someone's opinion.
If you are confused between opinions, and data owned by a company who is not showing you .....
well .. you are just some random dude on the internet. If you want to stick your head in the sand, it is your prerogative. I, however, do not have to do the same.
I applaud them for putting together so much public data but there are far too many variables and figures, the important ones, to be considered serious report on the subject of F2P MMOs.
The problems with how they get their data when MMO companies like any other company do not give out much in the way of data is one we have always had in MMO's. In particular how much money they are making is impossible to tell, even companies which release annual figures for investors should have their figures taken with a pinch of salt.
The problem with how they are defining P2P and F2P is a new one. Is GW2 a B2P MMO going to be P2P or F2P. As questions like that could swing the result one way or the other in the favour of P2P or F2P they are of crucial importance.
Long term item transaction will be the "winner" of this contest, if it is not already the true winner. The cash shop which now sells subscriptions in F2P MMOs and new content chapters in both types of MMO, along with game altering and fluff items is king.
wow .. run-on sentence galore.
The issue is not how they get their data. They are selling their data to MMO companies, so i doubt the quality is bad.
The issue is that you are not willing to shelf out money to see the details, and try to imagine problems.
Let me put it this way .. whatever way they define P2P ... it would only include games that are sub-only. Sub-only games are losing out in the market. It does not take a genius to see that. And you say it too "long term item transaction" will be the winner. That is F2P.
Nari,
Problem is what you are doing is resorting to arguement by false-authority. While I wouldn't be surprised if the statement was factualy accurate, the evidence provided is pretty weak at best....
- X makes Y statement
- X claims itself as an authoritative export.
- X claims z other organizations consider it an expert.
- X provides no information of it's methods of data collection/tabulation for independant verfification nor even a way to verify other organizations relationship with it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see this in my industry all the time. All that's really required of X to do so is some cheap web hosting, an e-mail box/phone number and around $200 to establish an LLC.
Usualy X isn't completely bogus but the methods of data collection tend to be deeply flawed and highly suspect at best. They are also usualy calculated to sell some business/consulting service that conveniently happens to match the latest industry "buzzword". Sometimes thier "customers" are even organizations they've provided FREE service for (in order to list as customers).
In other words, the source you cite isn't some "random dude on the internet" but neither is it one that should inspire a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of it's claims. This is especialy relevant given what we know about the difficulty in trying to collect the type of data you would need to establish such claims with a high degree of confidence.
Note, I say this DESPITE the fact that I suspect F2P may be generating significantly more revenue then P2P and it's certainly comething that all the industry talking heads seem to believe.
Bottom line is that the access to data to make such claims accross the industry as a whole with any real degree of confidence just isn't in ANYONES hands.....and honestly it's probably LESS in these peoples hands then it is in many of the publishers internal data. Sometimes in business, individuals are simply looking to some source that they can cite as an authority to justify the decisions that they want to make, in case those decisions don't work out well.
No. What i am doing is resorting to argument by REAL-authority.
A market research firm that sells analysis and data to game devs is real authority to me (at least better than any random dude on the internet). You can stick your head in the sand but numbers are numbers.
This is one of the biggest hurdles to any type of meaningful discussion here. This is data that companies pay tens of thousands of dollars for. It sells for that kind of money because companies find the data accurate enough and valuable enough to pay that much. There is no logical reason to believe SuperDataResearch, NewZoo or any of the other major sources are trying to be misleading or dealing with made up numbers. To put "but I believe" as a higher level of credibility over reliable industry data is absurd, yet it's done here all the time. Cite Bartle on MUDs and you get in reply "Who is he to decide that's right?" Cite Quarterly/Annual Shareholder Reports and you get in reply that they're hiding something or the numbers are fudged. Cite a developer on their ARPU/ARPPU and you get in reply that they're not going to give the real numbers or that it is marketing spin.
GM2, that you would call a thoroughly researched industry report "weak" or claim "false authority" to counter information from professionals in the industry is a bit ...odd, no?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre