Originally posted by nottuned Can F2P survive is the question how long do you think they can keep pumping out these games. The decent F2P games were P2P to start.
Yes and the funny thing is, games like Rift and Aion, which I used to like when they were p2p I don t anymore. My wife and I were just talking about this yesterday. As soon as they went F2p we lost interest in them. Can t put a finger on it, but it happened.
P2P is the most reliable business model for a developer in terms of monthly budget projection, it will die when there are no longer games worth playing for an extended period of time. I assure you developers prefer P2P and will aspire to maintain such a prestigious business model, held only by the most exceptional of games.
And yet F2P makes more money, and the whole industry is moving in that direction.
Do you have a link to the article supporting this statement, or even a simple graph to break it down for me? Most of these things come down to perspective and what angle you show the data from so I would be interested to see where this came from. F2P may look better at first since it shows large amounts of money in short time frames but compare it to WoW for instance over the past decade and the numbers show a completely different story.
Of course. In fact, MULTIPLE articles with many data points.
"The last five years have seen a significant upset to the model of subscription games, with audiences of P2P MMO titles remaining steady or declining, while the number of F2P game users has exploded. If you were to look at the growth of the audience alone, the market for F2P games is substantially larger than that for pay-to-play. Six times larger, in fact."
“Recovering from last month’s audience decline, free-to-play MMOs counted an additional 3 million players in March. At the same time monetization saw a slight improvement, causing overall revenues to grow to $195 million.”
“The pay-to-play MMO segment contracted and lost an estimated 289,000 subscribers in March. Overall revenues, however, remained relatively stable at $86 million.”
"Free-to-play MMO games take 47% of all money spent on MMO games in the US, up from 39% in 2010"
Ah, so 250+ F2P games earned as much as 5 sub-only MMO's ?
LMAO
No wonder AAA MMO's are still trying to launch as sub-based games...
I have to agree with this. They are taking Zynga games into account as F2P MMOs. That's not fair at all. They are completely different animals. Are you actually saying Zynga games are MMOs and should be used in the same data pool? Also, the first two articles are from the same company "SuperData", and I can not see how exactly they come about their predictions and data without paying for a "subscription". The irony isn't lost on me.
As for the third article:
"84% of American MMO gamers plays browser-based MMOs. Almost half of these consumers also play client-based MMOs"
That tells me that they are including Facebook games like "Farmville" as well. I see these as two completely different markets. The same way I see tablet games and PC games as different markets. If I had known you were using articles that used them as data points I never would have doubted that they would outspend P2P MMORPGs. In fact I am shocked at how well the very few P2P MMOs are holding up to the tablet/facebook gaming craze.
I guess I should have been more clear. I was never comparing Candy Crush Saga (F2P) with EVE Online(P2P).
Much prefer p2p, give me a monthly sub were I get everything the game offers rather than f2p which usually ends up costing more. Plus the quality of the community tends to be far nicer in p2p, far less free loaders.
The biggest problem with P2P faced was that just as competition in the industry was exploding, the implied contract-for-content began breaking down in several games simulateously.
UO cut back development to token levels - mostly just patching in cash shop items for a couple of years.
EvE took subsciption money to fund other projects.
WoW locked customers in with an annual pass promotion timed with a raid patch before then going into a year-long void without any new content, reinforcing the notion that subscriptions were pure lock-in.
These issues collectively opened a window in which other business models could look good in comparison. If P2P is to recapture a wide audience, the trust needs to be restored - publishers need to find a way to demonstrate the sustained value of the model in comparison to the alternatives.
I have to agree with this. They are taking Zynga games into account as F2P MMOs. That's not fair at all. They are completely different animals. Are you actually saying Zynga games are MMOs and should be used in the same data pool? Also, the first two articles are from the same company "SuperData", and I can not see how exactly they come about their predictions and data without paying for a "subscription". The irony isn't lost on me.
The biggest problem with P2P faced was that just as competition in the industry was exploding, the implied contract-for-content began breaking down in several games simulateously.
UO cut back development to token levels - mostly just patching in cash shop items for a couple of years.
EvE took subsciption money to fund other projects.
WoW locked customers in with an annual pass promotion timed with a raid patch before then going into a year-long void without any new content, reinforcing the notion that subscriptions were pure lock-in.
These issues collectively opened a window in which other business models could look good in comparison. If P2P is to recapture a wide audience, the trust needs to be restored - publishers need to find a way to demonstrate the sustained value of the model in comparison to the alternatives.
Are you really under the impression that when you pay for a product or service - any product or service - that all your money gets reinvested back into that one product or service?
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
I have to agree with this. They are taking Zynga games into account as F2P MMOs. That's not fair at all. They are completely different animals. Are you actually saying Zynga games are MMOs and should be used in the same data pool? Also, the first two articles are from the same company "SuperData", and I can not see how exactly they come about their predictions and data without paying for a "subscription". The irony isn't lost on me.
MMO's these days are very much a different breed than the ones released in the era of Everquest, EvE, and WoW. Back in 2004 releasing a mmo with attached monthly fees was the norm, and quite a few games became wildly successful because of it...
Logical fallacy.
Most games that are now F2P started as Subscriptions and thus your argument has no meaning. In fact, we have the games that we have today because of those early MMOs.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
EvE took subsciption money to fund other projects.
Are you really under the impression that when you pay for a product or service - any product or service - that all your money gets reinvested back into that one product or service?
Yes. Absolutely yes. An implied component of any subscription model (no matter what the industry) is that a portion of the subscription is being reinvested back into new content or new infrastructure.
MMO's these days are very much a different breed than the ones released in the era of Everquest, EvE, and WoW. Back in 2004 releasing a mmo with attached monthly fees was the norm, and quite a few games became wildly successful because of it...
Logical fallacy.
Most games that are now F2P started as Subscriptions and thus your argument has no meaning. In fact, we have the games that we have today because of those early MMOs.
Is it worth pointing out that those games generally still have subscriptions?
That is one of the problems with the way this arguement is portrayed. F2P nowadays doesn't mean no subscription, it means no mandatory subscription (even if a significant portion of the games profit is still from such subscriptions - there was a reason why F2P market share jumped when games started switching P2P to F2P, and it wasn't that subscriptions had vanished).
EvE took subsciption money to fund other projects.
Are you really under the impression that when you pay for a product or service - any product or service - that all your money gets reinvested back into that one product or service?
Yes. Absolutely yes. An implied component of any subscription model (no matter what the industry) is that a portion of the subscription is being reinvested back into new content or new infrastructure.
You said "yes, absolutely yes" and you next sentence is agreeing with his?
He said "all your money gets reinvested back".
And you said "a portion of the subscription is being reinvested back".
Those are two very different things. Don't tell me you don't know the different between "all", and "a portion of". You should say:
No. Absolutely no. An implied component of any subscription model (no matter what the industry) is that only a portion of the subscription is being reinvested back into new content or new infrastructure.
I don't understand how people say they can't afford 15$ a month or it's too expensive, but those same people manage to pre order a PS4 worth 3-4 years of sub fee to a MMO , make that 5-6 years after buying your 2 games and other gear. Stop the crying, if you can't afford a monthly fee then you don't know and do not want any quality MMORPG's and we'll be stuck with the same garbage for the next 10 years. At least SquareEnix are holding firm with FF14 monthly fee and they stood with the monthly fee with FF11 up until now, and for that I will support and buy FF14 on release.
Want quality gaming back in the MMO universe? Then you all need to stop supporting F2P / P2W titles.
I don't understand how people say they can't afford 15$ a month or it's too expensive,
No one says that.
It is never about affordability. I wouldn't think twice about dropping a few hundred bucks on a michelin star restaurant meal with my wife, but i won't pay a cent for a MMO.
Why? Because there are free alternatives that are as much fun. So why should i pay anything, not to mention $15 a month?
I for one see no way a new P2P mmo can justify the need for having a large $15/month fee
It takes me all of 27 minutes of working one day of work a month to pay for that large fee. I can not go see a movie and come out with money to spare.... I can not go drinking once a week and pay for several months worth of subs (I don't drink, but game with those who do... they can plop down more in bars in a night sometimes than a years sub cost).
Besides that, how do you know what it takes to make a profit for these game companies? Think bandwidth and servers and power and air conditioning and people to man them 24/7 are free?
No, ANet's buy once scheme works great... as long as the cash from the cash shop keeps coming in (they hope you pay more than $15 a month actually).
Think of the $15 a month sub as a throttle to profits. Those that remove it can make a lot more (for a while) using "Free to play" cash shops.
Edit: And I pay $50 or more for my internet even though I could buy a cable modem once. Internets are free right? I bought the product, so I should never have to pay again.... Right.....
I don't understand how people say they can't afford 15$ a month or it's too expensive,
No one says that.
It is never about affordability. I wouldn't think twice about dropping a few hundred bucks on a michelin star restaurant meal with my wife, but i won't pay a cent for a MMO.
Why? Because there are free alternatives that are as much fun. So why should i pay anything, not to mention $15 a month?
How would you know they are just as much fun if you won't pay to play them?
I don't understand how people say they can't afford 15$ a month or it's too expensive,
No one says that.
It is never about affordability. I wouldn't think twice about dropping a few hundred bucks on a michelin star restaurant meal with my wife, but i won't pay a cent for a MMO.
Why? Because there are free alternatives that are as much fun. So why should i pay anything, not to mention $15 a month?
That is completely subjective. I find every single f2p , B2p games garbage. Every game that has f2p and sub option, the sub option is always in my experience a better deal, and makes the game a better experience. P2P will always to me be better. As you can see though, I always say to me, or in my experience.
We will know very soon. FFXIV is the only upcoming MMO release which is sticking to pure P2P model.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' -Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid." -Luke McKinney
Don't tell me you don't know the different between "all", and "a portion of".
A company's budgeting, from seen from the customer point of view, breaks a subscription fee into three components: maintenance (servers, ads, customer service, security patches, etc), investment-in-this-product (new infrastructure, new content, bug patching) and profit (money the company can do whatever they want with). This is not part of any official contract, so don't bother pointing that out, it's just the implied agreement in the back of our minds (or at least my mind).
To my mind, money spent investing in different game should be coming out of the profits, not the investment-in-this-product. My feeling is that some companies started to blur this distinction in their planning and budgeting and it damaged the perceived value of the subscription.
"all or none" is not the issue ... it's the perceived balance. I'm sorry for not dumbing down the conversation far enough for you to follow.
(edit: ug ... I pity anyone who is sensisitive to bad spelling who tries to read my posts)
I don't understand how people say they can't afford 15$ a month or it's too expensive,
No one says that.
It is never about affordability. I wouldn't think twice about dropping a few hundred bucks on a michelin star restaurant meal with my wife, but i won't pay a cent for a MMO.
Why? Because there are free alternatives that are as much fun. So why should i pay anything, not to mention $15 a month?
How would you know they are just as much fun if you won't pay to play them?
I don't understand how people say they can't afford 15$ a month or it's too expensive,
No one says that.
It is never about affordability. I wouldn't think twice about dropping a few hundred bucks on a michelin star restaurant meal with my wife, but i won't pay a cent for a MMO.
Why? Because there are free alternatives that are as much fun. So why should i pay anything, not to mention $15 a month?
That is completely subjective. I find every single f2p , B2p games garbage. Every game that has f2p and sub option, the sub option is always in my experience a better deal, and makes the game a better experience. P2P will always to me be better. As you can see though, I always say to me, or in my experience.
Yes, it is completely subjective. And i find F2P MMOs just as, if not more fun, than P2P ones.
So why would i pay?
Again, the point is never about affordability, but subjective perception of fun.
Ah, so 250+ F2P games earned as much as 5 sub-only MMO's ?
Only because of WOW. Without wow, p2p dollar is not going to be that big.
LMAO
You're REALLY reaching here. How on earth can you simply say "Oh, WoW doesn't count" ? It makes your numbers look bad, so let's just ignore it ?
The entire F2P game market earns more than the subscription market. But that is across all platforms (PC, tablet and phone games). If you could do an actual comparison of F2P MMORPG's to sub MMORPG's, the picture would look VERY different.
You seem to be quite happy to quote "research findings" by companies who make a living from selling F2P analysis to customers. You're not at all concerned that this data may be biased ? it kind of reminds me of those people that sell books entitled: "How to make a million dollars in 5 easy steps".
Yes, most of the dying AAA MMO's that converted to F2P reported a huge increase in revenue. But I don't ever recall them publishing their original sub income in the first 6-12 months after launch.
I don't understand how people say they can't afford 15$ a month or it's too expensive,
No one says that.
It is never about affordability. I wouldn't think twice about dropping a few hundred bucks on a michelin star restaurant meal with my wife, but i won't pay a cent for a MMO.
Why? Because there are free alternatives that are as much fun. So why should i pay anything, not to mention $15 a month?
That is completely subjective. I find every single f2p , B2p games garbage. Every game that has f2p and sub option, the sub option is always in my experience a better deal, and makes the game a better experience. P2P will always to me be better. As you can see though, I always say to me, or in my experience.
Yes, it is completely subjective. And i find F2P MMOs just as, if not more fun, than P2P ones.
So why would i pay?
Again, the point is never about affordability, but subjective perception of fun.
I never mentioned affordability, I merely commented on how it s subjective, and I agree with another poster, if you haven t tried it because you would rather play F2P games, then how would you know they re funner. I can try any F2P game I choose, and have no problem trying a lot of P2P games. I can tell you in my experience, there isn t one F2P game as good as many P2P games. The F2P model lets me try them to see, and I ve literally tried them all.
Comments
Yes and the funny thing is, games like Rift and Aion, which I used to like when they were p2p I don t anymore. My wife and I were just talking about this yesterday. As soon as they went F2p we lost interest in them. Can t put a finger on it, but it happened.
I have to agree with this. They are taking Zynga games into account as F2P MMOs. That's not fair at all. They are completely different animals. Are you actually saying Zynga games are MMOs and should be used in the same data pool? Also, the first two articles are from the same company "SuperData", and I can not see how exactly they come about their predictions and data without paying for a "subscription". The irony isn't lost on me.
As for the third article:
"84% of American MMO gamers plays browser-based MMOs. Almost half of these consumers also play client-based MMOs"
That tells me that they are including Facebook games like "Farmville" as well. I see these as two completely different markets. The same way I see tablet games and PC games as different markets. If I had known you were using articles that used them as data points I never would have doubted that they would outspend P2P MMORPGs. In fact I am shocked at how well the very few P2P MMOs are holding up to the tablet/facebook gaming craze.
I guess I should have been more clear. I was never comparing Candy Crush Saga (F2P) with EVE Online(P2P).
Much prefer p2p, give me a monthly sub were I get everything the game offers rather than f2p which usually ends up costing more. Plus the quality of the community tends to be far nicer in p2p, far less free loaders.
The biggest problem with P2P faced was that just as competition in the industry was exploding, the implied contract-for-content began breaking down in several games simulateously.
UO cut back development to token levels - mostly just patching in cash shop items for a couple of years.
EvE took subsciption money to fund other projects.
WoW locked customers in with an annual pass promotion timed with a raid patch before then going into a year-long void without any new content, reinforcing the notion that subscriptions were pure lock-in.
These issues collectively opened a window in which other business models could look good in comparison. If P2P is to recapture a wide audience, the trust needs to be restored - publishers need to find a way to demonstrate the sustained value of the model in comparison to the alternatives.
They do not.
http://www.business2community.com/tech-gadgets/digital-game-sales-for-march-2013-0475928
There is a separate "social games" category.
Are you really under the impression that when you pay for a product or service - any product or service - that all your money gets reinvested back into that one product or service?
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
If you look at that picture, next to F2P it states (Social, Mobile, MMO) and next to P2P it simply says (MMO)
Only because of WOW. Without wow, p2p dollar is not going to be that big.
Logical fallacy.
Most games that are now F2P started as Subscriptions and thus your argument has no meaning. In fact, we have the games that we have today because of those early MMOs.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Yes. Absolutely yes. An implied component of any subscription model (no matter what the industry) is that a portion of the subscription is being reinvested back into new content or new infrastructure.
Is it worth pointing out that those games generally still have subscriptions?
That is one of the problems with the way this arguement is portrayed. F2P nowadays doesn't mean no subscription, it means no mandatory subscription (even if a significant portion of the games profit is still from such subscriptions - there was a reason why F2P market share jumped when games started switching P2P to F2P, and it wasn't that subscriptions had vanished).
You said "yes, absolutely yes" and you next sentence is agreeing with his?
He said "all your money gets reinvested back".
And you said "a portion of the subscription is being reinvested back".
Those are two very different things. Don't tell me you don't know the different between "all", and "a portion of". You should say:
No. Absolutely no. An implied component of any subscription model (no matter what the industry) is that only a portion of the subscription is being reinvested back into new content or new infrastructure.
I don't understand how people say they can't afford 15$ a month or it's too expensive, but those same people manage to pre order a PS4 worth 3-4 years of sub fee to a MMO , make that 5-6 years after buying your 2 games and other gear. Stop the crying, if you can't afford a monthly fee then you don't know and do not want any quality MMORPG's and we'll be stuck with the same garbage for the next 10 years. At least SquareEnix are holding firm with FF14 monthly fee and they stood with the monthly fee with FF11 up until now, and for that I will support and buy FF14 on release.
Want quality gaming back in the MMO universe? Then you all need to stop supporting F2P / P2W titles.
No one says that.
It is never about affordability. I wouldn't think twice about dropping a few hundred bucks on a michelin star restaurant meal with my wife, but i won't pay a cent for a MMO.
Why? Because there are free alternatives that are as much fun. So why should i pay anything, not to mention $15 a month?
It takes me all of 27 minutes of working one day of work a month to pay for that large fee. I can not go see a movie and come out with money to spare.... I can not go drinking once a week and pay for several months worth of subs (I don't drink, but game with those who do... they can plop down more in bars in a night sometimes than a years sub cost).
Besides that, how do you know what it takes to make a profit for these game companies? Think bandwidth and servers and power and air conditioning and people to man them 24/7 are free?
No, ANet's buy once scheme works great... as long as the cash from the cash shop keeps coming in (they hope you pay more than $15 a month actually).
Think of the $15 a month sub as a throttle to profits. Those that remove it can make a lot more (for a while) using "Free to play" cash shops.
Edit: And I pay $50 or more for my internet even though I could buy a cable modem once. Internets are free right? I bought the product, so I should never have to pay again.... Right.....
How would you know they are just as much fun if you won't pay to play them?
That is completely subjective. I find every single f2p , B2p games garbage. Every game that has f2p and sub option, the sub option is always in my experience a better deal, and makes the game a better experience. P2P will always to me be better. As you can see though, I always say to me, or in my experience.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
A company's budgeting, from seen from the customer point of view, breaks a subscription fee into three components: maintenance (servers, ads, customer service, security patches, etc), investment-in-this-product (new infrastructure, new content, bug patching) and profit (money the company can do whatever they want with). This is not part of any official contract, so don't bother pointing that out, it's just the implied agreement in the back of our minds (or at least my mind).
To my mind, money spent investing in different game should be coming out of the profits, not the investment-in-this-product. My feeling is that some companies started to blur this distinction in their planning and budgeting and it damaged the perceived value of the subscription.
"all or none" is not the issue ... it's the perceived balance. I'm sorry for not dumbing down the conversation far enough for you to follow.
(edit: ug ... I pity anyone who is sensisitive to bad spelling who tries to read my posts)
I support P2P models but I won't choose FFXIV:ARR as my champion. If you want a champion for P2P keep referring to WoW.
By playing a trial?
Yes, it is completely subjective. And i find F2P MMOs just as, if not more fun, than P2P ones.
So why would i pay?
Again, the point is never about affordability, but subjective perception of fun.
Not admitting you made a logical mistake by deflecting the discussion?
LMAO
You're REALLY reaching here. How on earth can you simply say "Oh, WoW doesn't count" ? It makes your numbers look bad, so let's just ignore it ?
The entire F2P game market earns more than the subscription market. But that is across all platforms (PC, tablet and phone games). If you could do an actual comparison of F2P MMORPG's to sub MMORPG's, the picture would look VERY different.
You seem to be quite happy to quote "research findings" by companies who make a living from selling F2P analysis to customers. You're not at all concerned that this data may be biased ? it kind of reminds me of those people that sell books entitled: "How to make a million dollars in 5 easy steps".
Yes, most of the dying AAA MMO's that converted to F2P reported a huge increase in revenue. But I don't ever recall them publishing their original sub income in the first 6-12 months after launch.
I never mentioned affordability, I merely commented on how it s subjective, and I agree with another poster, if you haven t tried it because you would rather play F2P games, then how would you know they re funner. I can try any F2P game I choose, and have no problem trying a lot of P2P games. I can tell you in my experience, there isn t one F2P game as good as many P2P games. The F2P model lets me try them to see, and I ve literally tried them all.