It's all about how exciting, how entertaining the game is. The payment scheme is not the deciding factor.
Not if two game are as exciting and entertaining as each other.
Why i would pay anything if i can get the same amount of fun for free.
If there were two games that where equally as good as each other, I would chose the P2P one that didn't have the cash shop or the advertising or the buffs or the limited storage and all the other shit I have had to put up with in F2P games. Paying up front removes that annoyance for me.
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.”
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"
In other words.. f2p is the McDonalds of the mmo market.
It also explains the over-saturation with hundreds of crappy mmos.
Edit: Why are mobile and tablets games added to that list?
Edit2: Those links shows that p2p is beating the crap out the f2p market.. thats after taking those retarded mobile device numbers away.
You have added a new spanner in the works for F2P lovers. Every time I point out to them that the figures could be caused by B2P being counted as F2P they go silent. Now you have pointed out another issue, if mobile device "MMO's" are being counted no wonder F2P seems to be doing so well.
I have no doubt that F2P can bring in the money, but it is ignoring points like those above that seem essential to our pro F2P crowd.
I have also noticed that they often quote studies by companies that you have to pay for to get further details. Now that's fair enough for the company, they did a lot of work and expect to get something out of it. But what it means is we don't know the details, we don't know if GW2 was counted as a F2P game for example. (I would put B2P in its own category.)
Rather than skating over these issues our F2P posters need to realise how the devil is in the details when it comes to business reports. There is also a lot of vested interest here, I would suggest that any data from EA for example is going to be massaged to show how wonderful the F2P revenue system is.
I would not come on here and say P2P is the dominant financial model, in fact I have never argued that. I realise that with vested interest and companies legitimately hiding what is going on for business reasons we are not being given the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Yes but only for the short term....The main two p2p titles that have had success (WoW and Eve) both launched several years ago...Probably the biggest reason why they both still have subs is that players have alot at stake in both games and have built up too much to just let it go.......Reallys aside from those 2 what p2p has held up in the last few years for any length of time?.....There are over 600 MMOs now and all but a handful are free to play......15 dollars isnt much money to most of us but that isn't the point......Also the second you stop paying in p2p you cant play anymore...I can always go back to any f2p and play whenever I want.
Producers: If Your Game Does Not Suck, They Will Come.
Payment model finishes a distant 500th (roughly) on the "mmo causes I am concerned about".
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Edit: Why are mobile and tablets games added to that list?
You should read more carefully. It is a report about digital games with all sort of data. MMO is just a part.
And mobile is reported SEPARATELY as a category and has nothing to do with MMO.
You clearly didn't read my last post. If you actually click on the picture that is showing the data it says (Social, Mobile, MMO) next to F2P and next to P2P it simply lists (MMO).
I noticed those things after a whole two minutes of glancing at them. If you can't be bothered to look at the articles you are quoting then I can't be bothered to take anything you say serious.
Originally posted by Vutar Of course it can work. The game just has to be worth playing. F2P players will of course cry doom and gloom but after they get done with that, they'll do the math and figure out they can afford a P2P game. All F2P games do is trick you into thinking its free.
It is never about affordability. But why should I pay even one cent if i can find as much fun for free?
And what tricks? So far i have paid exactly nothing playing f2p MMO, pretty much as advertised.
Edit: Why are mobile and tablets games added to that list?
You should read more carefully. It is a report about digital games with all sort of data. MMO is just a part.
And mobile is reported SEPARATELY as a category and has nothing to do with MMO.
You clearly didn't read my last post. If you actually click on the picture that is showing the data it says (Social, Mobile, MMO) next to F2P and next to P2P it simply lists (MMO).
I noticed those things after a whole two minutes of glancing at them. If you can't be bothered to look at the articles you are quoting then I can't be bothered to take anything you say serious.
Do your own homework.
If you actually READ the paragraph, mobile and mmos are separately discussed.
You need to actually read, instead of just looking at some pictures.
You have added a new spanner in the works for F2P lovers. Every time I point out to them that the figures could be caused by B2P being counted as F2P they go silent
How about sub-only MMOs are going away? Better now?
Personally I think the P2P model is going to fade into obscurity. You have big names like GW2 coming along with no sub fee yet cough out more content than most P2P games offer, and inject new content every two weeks... what P2P game even remotely keeps up with that? Certainly not the big dog, WoW, which charges you for the expansions while sucking the monthly fee out of you. ArenaNet and GW2 have raised the bar significantly by proving you can give the customers a ton of stuff without charging them for it monthly (Oh, by the way, shinies in the cash shop!) and can be profitable with the "shiny-based" cash shop model.
What was it... Wildstar that just announced they'll be P2P? Incredibly risky move. They'll be F2P (maybe B2P) within six months.
In other words.. f2p is the McDonalds of the mmo market.
It also explains the over-saturation with hundreds of crappy mmos.
nah .. i would say sub-only is the over-price restaurant that are dying, and f2p is a booming explosion of choices and quality. And a f2p conversion is like Restaurant Impossible that saves the business.
BTW, how do you feel when f2p has so many choices and varieties, and p2p have only a few.
Edit: Why are mobile and tablets games added to that list?
You should read more carefully. It is a report about digital games with all sort of data. MMO is just a part.
And mobile is reported SEPARATELY as a category and has nothing to do with MMO.
You clearly didn't read my last post. If you actually click on the picture that is showing the data it says (Social, Mobile, MMO) next to F2P and next to P2P it simply lists (MMO).
I noticed those things after a whole two minutes of glancing at them. If you can't be bothered to look at the articles you are quoting then I can't be bothered to take anything you say serious.
Do your own homework.
If you actually READ the paragraph, mobile and mmos are separately discussed.
You need to actually read, instead of just looking at some pictures.
Reading is exactly what I did and that you appear to need help with. The whole article is using Free-to-play to include SOCIAL, MOBILE, and MMO. What part of this are you not understanding? They are defining Free-to-play as SOCIAL, MOBILE, and MMO. They are 3 seperate categories that are being combined to show F2P in a much better light.
Originally posted by Gwendal Woah lots of good discussion here . Alot of you are bringing the point of $15/month being not alot of money for entertainment and I would agree if you didnt have games like GW2 producing content on a bi weekly basis for free! Why should I pay a monthly fee to a dev who wont provide me with even the same content delivery schedule as a B2P game? I think moving forward devs will have a hard time justifying that monthly fee as we have had games be successful without the need for it. My hope would be that devs will adopt a more hybrid business plan where a large range of people can get their hands on the game the way they want, while still having a niche community for the few great p2p games out there!
Hmm. Hard to put this the right way, but I don't pay 15 bucks a month for the content updates. Its not about filtering out the freeloaders either. Its more about knowing that everyone you play with has made the same financial commitment as you. Its an intangible tone that sets up the community in a different way than f2p and b2p cash shop games. I like the way p2p communities feel. Not saying b2p and f2p ones are crap. They are just not what I look for in an mmorpg.
Hmm... I have to admit that I find this argument a little odd. I know that I, personally, don't care how much other people are spending in the game so long as their expenditures really don't offer them an overall advantage in the game. If I'm having fun I don't care that that guy over there spent $500 for a nice looking set of armor with the same stats as the armor I crafted for myself. So as I see it, financial commitment really shouldn't be a factor, and if it is there's something significantly wrong with the core of the game itself.
Now you have pointed out another issue, if mobile device "MMO's" are being counted no wonder F2P seems to be doing so well.
He didn't read carefully enough. Mobile is reported as a separate category.
The report is about multiple categories of games, not just MMO.
Fair enough, having a look at the source though I now think he may have meant the money generated by mobile platforms was irrelevant to the issue at hand. Either way mobile games were not lumped in.
Oh and further on my point about vested interest, it is noticeable that when P2P had a bigger market share in purely number of MMO's it was doing fabulously. Now F2P has a bigger market share in number of MMO's we find that F2P is doing fabulously. I am not saying that F2P is not doing well, but companies massage data all the time to keep the share holders happy. I would be astonished if that did not happen here.
I think the question is wrong. I think it's more like can F2P survive. So much more competition among titles now, So many choices and so many mediocre games. GW2 was supposed to usher in a new billing model revolution. NCSoft has reported a decline in profits from GW2 and it's next Western release is going to be subscription based. Why did NCSoft abandon B2P? Obviously, there are many more factors in that decision, I get that, but if the Cash Shop generated revenue and boxed fees is as profitable as people hoped, there'd be no reason to ever go for a sub model again. But yet here we are.
FF14 is going P2P
ESO is going P2P
WildStar is going P2P
There are links in this forum right now discussing SWTOR and speculations that model is not as profitable as EA wants. There are discussions arguing over GW2's profitability. The most successful Western Theme Park (WoW) and the most successful Western sand box (EVE) are both still P2P models.
IMO, the argument has never been, nor should it ever be about the business model. The argument is about the quality of games. If you have a quality product, people will pay for it.
I think the question is wrong. I think it's more like can F2P survive. So much more competition among titles now, So many choices and so many mediocre games. GW2 was supposed to usher in a new billing model revolution. NCSoft has reported a decline in profits from GW2 and it's next Western release is going to be subscription based. Why did NCSoft abandon B2P? Obviously, there are many more factors in that decision, I get that, but if the Cash Shop generated revenue and boxed fees is as profitable as people hoped, there'd be no reason to ever go for a sub model again. But yet here we are.
FF14 is going P2P
ESO is going P2P
WildStar is going P2P
There are links in this forum right now discussing SWTOR and speculations that model is not as profitable as EA wants. There are discussions arguing over GW2's profitability. The most successful Western Theme Park (WoW) and the most successful Western sand box (EVE) are both still P2P models.
IMO, the argument has never been, nor should it ever be about the business model. The argument is about the quality of games. If you have a quality product, people will pay for it.
Keep in mind that GW2 sold an incredible number of boxes out of the gate in a really short period of time (over 3 million in five months with the cheapest being $60.00), so it's expected to decline from those heady numbers to something more sustainable. It's still ridiculously profitable right now. Yet WoW is beginning to buckle under the weight of its subscription fees for a game that's a bit long in the tooth these days with a trending and notable loss of subscriptions.
$25 million or so in revenues for the latest quarter for GW2, hardly something to sneeze at, especially for NCSoft when you consider it's the second most profitable game they have behind the Asian juggernaut L1.
I think the question is wrong. I think it's more like can F2P survive. So much more competition among titles now, So many choices and so many mediocre games. GW2 was supposed to usher in a new billing model revolution. NCSoft has reported a decline in profits from GW2 and it's next Western release is going to be subscription based. Why did NCSoft abandon B2P? Obviously, there are many more factors in that decision, I get that, but if the Cash Shop generated revenue and boxed fees is as profitable as people hoped, there'd be no reason to ever go for a sub model again. But yet here we are.
FF14 is going P2P
ESO is going P2P
WildStar is going P2P
There are links in this forum right now discussing SWTOR and speculations that model is not as profitable as EA wants. There are discussions arguing over GW2's profitability. The most successful Western Theme Park (WoW) and the most successful Western sand box (EVE) are both still P2P models.
IMO, the argument has never been, nor should it ever be about the business model. The argument is about the quality of games. If you have a quality product, people will pay for it.
GW2 was never ushering in any new billing model revolution. They had very strategic marketing, positioning against subscription while avoiding the F2P stigma, brilliantly selling the mantra of "Just buy it and play it" to rake in truckloads of cash on a box fee for what is an item mall game. Subscription fans rejoiced because they perceived it as "subscription quality" without the monthly fee, and F2P fans rejoiced because they perceived the box fee as a sign that more money would go into creating a quality game for them.
That aside, your conclusion that it should be about quality is correct but very skewed, as it makes the leap from "they will pay for quality" to "they will pay for quality by business model x", the latter only being true if business model x aligns with how the target audience wants to pay for their MMO entertainment.
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 think the question is wrong. I think it's more like can F2P survive. So much more competition among titles now, So many choices and so many mediocre games. GW2 was supposed to usher in a new billing model revolution. NCSoft has reported a decline in profits from GW2 and it's next Western release is going to be subscription based. Why did NCSoft abandon B2P? Obviously, there are many more factors in that decision, I get that, but if the Cash Shop generated revenue and boxed fees is as profitable as people hoped, there'd be no reason to ever go for a sub model again. But yet here we are.
FF14 is going P2P
ESO is going P2P
WildStar is going P2P
There are links in this forum right now discussing SWTOR and speculations that model is not as profitable as EA wants. There are discussions arguing over GW2's profitability. The most successful Western Theme Park (WoW) and the most successful Western sand box (EVE) are both still P2P models.
IMO, the argument has never been, nor should it ever be about the business model. The argument is about the quality of games. If you have a quality product, people will pay for it.
Hmm... I have to admit that I find this argument a little odd. I know that I, personally, don't care how much other people are spending in the game so long as their expenditures really don't offer them an overall advantage in the game. If I'm having fun I don't care that that guy over there spent $500 for a nice looking set of armor with the same stats as the armor I crafted for myself. So as I see it, financial commitment really shouldn't be a factor, and if it is there's something significantly wrong with the core of the game itself.
Games have to make money to survive. But to the one not spending the money screaming "It's not fair" I ask....Why on earth would anyone spend said $500 unless it's to be able to wipe your @$$ all over the game?
Guess what? They should be able to that's what they are paying for. Publishers are learning now that fluff and frill don't keep lights on. "I-WIN" buttons do. Don't want to get your @$$ wiped all over the game? Break out the credit card then.
Or, we can all go back to the original principal of everyone pays the same money for equal opportunity. At least there, if you get your ass wiped, it's because you chose not to do the same thing someone else in the game did, not because they spent more than you.
Comments
Not if two game are as exciting and entertaining as each other.
Why i would pay anything if i can get the same amount of fun for free.
If there were two games that where equally as good as each other, I would chose the P2P one that didn't have the cash shop or the advertising or the buffs or the limited storage and all the other shit I have had to put up with in F2P games. Paying up front removes that annoyance for me.
In other words.. f2p is the McDonalds of the mmo market.
It also explains the over-saturation with hundreds of crappy mmos.
Edit: Why are mobile and tablets games added to that list?
Edit2: Those links shows that p2p is beating the crap out the f2p market.. thats after taking those retarded mobile device numbers away.
You have added a new spanner in the works for F2P lovers. Every time I point out to them that the figures could be caused by B2P being counted as F2P they go silent. Now you have pointed out another issue, if mobile device "MMO's" are being counted no wonder F2P seems to be doing so well.
I have no doubt that F2P can bring in the money, but it is ignoring points like those above that seem essential to our pro F2P crowd.
I have also noticed that they often quote studies by companies that you have to pay for to get further details. Now that's fair enough for the company, they did a lot of work and expect to get something out of it. But what it means is we don't know the details, we don't know if GW2 was counted as a F2P game for example. (I would put B2P in its own category.)
Rather than skating over these issues our F2P posters need to realise how the devil is in the details when it comes to business reports. There is also a lot of vested interest here, I would suggest that any data from EA for example is going to be massaged to show how wonderful the F2P revenue system is.
I would not come on here and say P2P is the dominant financial model, in fact I have never argued that. I realise that with vested interest and companies legitimately hiding what is going on for business reasons we are not being given the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Producers: If Your Game Does Not Suck, They Will Come.
Payment model finishes a distant 500th (roughly) on the "mmo causes I am concerned about".
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
You should read more carefully. It is a report about digital games with all sort of data. MMO is just a part.
And mobile is reported SEPARATELY as a category and has nothing to do with MMO.
He didn't read carefully enough. Mobile is reported as a separate category.
The report is about multiple categories of games, not just MMO.
You clearly didn't read my last post. If you actually click on the picture that is showing the data it says (Social, Mobile, MMO) next to F2P and next to P2P it simply lists (MMO).
I noticed those things after a whole two minutes of glancing at them. If you can't be bothered to look at the articles you are quoting then I can't be bothered to take anything you say serious.
Do your own homework.
It is never about affordability. But why should I pay even one cent if i can find as much fun for free?
And what tricks? So far i have paid exactly nothing playing f2p MMO, pretty much as advertised.
If you actually READ the paragraph, mobile and mmos are separately discussed.
You need to actually read, instead of just looking at some pictures.
Personally I think the P2P model is going to fade into obscurity. You have big names like GW2 coming along with no sub fee yet cough out more content than most P2P games offer, and inject new content every two weeks... what P2P game even remotely keeps up with that? Certainly not the big dog, WoW, which charges you for the expansions while sucking the monthly fee out of you. ArenaNet and GW2 have raised the bar significantly by proving you can give the customers a ton of stuff without charging them for it monthly (Oh, by the way, shinies in the cash shop!) and can be profitable with the "shiny-based" cash shop model.
What was it... Wildstar that just announced they'll be P2P? Incredibly risky move. They'll be F2P (maybe B2P) within six months.
Oderint, dum metuant.
nah .. i would say sub-only is the over-price restaurant that are dying, and f2p is a booming explosion of choices and quality. And a f2p conversion is like Restaurant Impossible that saves the business.
BTW, how do you feel when f2p has so many choices and varieties, and p2p have only a few.
BTW, let's use "sub-only". Scot has a problem with p2p because he wants to roll "b2p" into it.
And yes, that is risky. Even EQN is going to be F2P.
Reading is exactly what I did and that you appear to need help with. The whole article is using Free-to-play to include SOCIAL, MOBILE, and MMO. What part of this are you not understanding? They are defining Free-to-play as SOCIAL, MOBILE, and MMO. They are 3 seperate categories that are being combined to show F2P in a much better light.
Hmm... I have to admit that I find this argument a little odd. I know that I, personally, don't care how much other people are spending in the game so long as their expenditures really don't offer them an overall advantage in the game. If I'm having fun I don't care that that guy over there spent $500 for a nice looking set of armor with the same stats as the armor I crafted for myself. So as I see it, financial commitment really shouldn't be a factor, and if it is there's something significantly wrong with the core of the game itself.
Oderint, dum metuant.
Fair enough, having a look at the source though I now think he may have meant the money generated by mobile platforms was irrelevant to the issue at hand. Either way mobile games were not lumped in.
Oh and further on my point about vested interest, it is noticeable that when P2P had a bigger market share in purely number of MMO's it was doing fabulously. Now F2P has a bigger market share in number of MMO's we find that F2P is doing fabulously. I am not saying that F2P is not doing well, but companies massage data all the time to keep the share holders happy. I would be astonished if that did not happen here.
I think the question is wrong. I think it's more like can F2P survive. So much more competition among titles now, So many choices and so many mediocre games. GW2 was supposed to usher in a new billing model revolution. NCSoft has reported a decline in profits from GW2 and it's next Western release is going to be subscription based. Why did NCSoft abandon B2P? Obviously, there are many more factors in that decision, I get that, but if the Cash Shop generated revenue and boxed fees is as profitable as people hoped, there'd be no reason to ever go for a sub model again. But yet here we are.
FF14 is going P2P
ESO is going P2P
WildStar is going P2P
There are links in this forum right now discussing SWTOR and speculations that model is not as profitable as EA wants. There are discussions arguing over GW2's profitability. The most successful Western Theme Park (WoW) and the most successful Western sand box (EVE) are both still P2P models.
IMO, the argument has never been, nor should it ever be about the business model. The argument is about the quality of games. If you have a quality product, people will pay for it.
Keep in mind that GW2 sold an incredible number of boxes out of the gate in a really short period of time (over 3 million in five months with the cheapest being $60.00), so it's expected to decline from those heady numbers to something more sustainable. It's still ridiculously profitable right now. Yet WoW is beginning to buckle under the weight of its subscription fees for a game that's a bit long in the tooth these days with a trending and notable loss of subscriptions.
$25 million or so in revenues for the latest quarter for GW2, hardly something to sneeze at, especially for NCSoft when you consider it's the second most profitable game they have behind the Asian juggernaut L1.
Oderint, dum metuant.
F2P was a failed experiment.
You had your chance to prove it was the "future of MMOs", but you failed.
Move along....
GW2 was never ushering in any new billing model revolution. They had very strategic marketing, positioning against subscription while avoiding the F2P stigma, brilliantly selling the mantra of "Just buy it and play it" to rake in truckloads of cash on a box fee for what is an item mall game. Subscription fans rejoiced because they perceived it as "subscription quality" without the monthly fee, and F2P fans rejoiced because they perceived the box fee as a sign that more money would go into creating a quality game for them.
That aside, your conclusion that it should be about quality is correct but very skewed, as it makes the leap from "they will pay for quality" to "they will pay for quality by business model x", the latter only being true if business model x aligns with how the target audience wants to pay for their MMO entertainment.
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
source?
Games have to make money to survive. But to the one not spending the money screaming "It's not fair" I ask....Why on earth would anyone spend said $500 unless it's to be able to wipe your @$$ all over the game?
Guess what? They should be able to that's what they are paying for. Publishers are learning now that fluff and frill don't keep lights on. "I-WIN" buttons do. Don't want to get your @$$ wiped all over the game? Break out the credit card then.
Or, we can all go back to the original principal of everyone pays the same money for equal opportunity. At least there, if you get your ass wiped, it's because you chose not to do the same thing someone else in the game did, not because they spent more than you.