I think one of the problems is that people are discussing two things in this thread, and some of the terminology is used with very different meanings in those contexts.
The majority is discussing F2P (as in free to play for the players) and P2P as monetization methods, some people are on the topic of "the advantages of having a cash shop (or adding it to a P2P game)". In the second context, they use "F2P" as synonym for "cash shop" or "cash shop earnings" and it has nothing to do with players being able to play the game for free or not.
Now, if suddenly adding a totally new meaning to a term used a lot in the main context of the thread instead of using clear (as in unique to your context) terminology is bad form or not is topic for an other discussion, so let's just leave it at that.
One more thing to note:
If you start a discussion that is labeled "F2P vs P2P" in a forum clearly labeled "MMORPG discussions ONLY. Take other discussions to the appropiate forum" but intend to discuss non-MMORPG specific data (the list linked is full of FPS, Beat'em'up, MOBA and Kids game data and thus isn't applicable to a MMORPG specific discussion), then please clearly label the thread as such.
Obviously (judging from a huge majority of the posts) most people who entered the thread later understood it as MMORPG specific discussion (and rightfully so, seeing in which forum it is posted). Thus the data shown is irrelevant in the context of the thread as agreed upon by most posters.
Labeling it clearly would have avoided this confusion and given us a better thread with less nonsense.
I think one of the problems is that people are discussing two things in this thread, and some of the terminology is used with very different meanings in those contexts.
The majority is discussing F2P (as in free to play for the players) and P2P as monetization methods, some people are on the topic of "the advantages of having a cash shop (or adding it to a P2P game)". In the second context, they use "F2P" as synonym for "cash shop" or "cash shop earnings" and it has nothing to do with players being able to play the game for free or not.
Now, if suddenly adding a totally new meaning to a term used a lot in the main context of the thread instead of using clear (as in unique to your context) terminology is bad form or not is topic for an other discussion, so let's just leave it at that.
One more thing to note:
If you start a discussion that is labeled "F2P vs P2P" in a forum clearly labeled "MMORPG discussions ONLY. Take other discussions to the appropiate forum" but intend to discuss non-MMORPG specific data (the list linked is full of FPS, Beat'em'up, MOBA and Kids game data and thus isn't applicable to a MMORPG specific discussion), then please clearly label the thread as such.
Obviously (judging from a huge majority of the posts) most people who entered the thread later understood it as MMORPG specific discussion (and rightfully so, seeing in which forum it is posted). Thus the data shown is irrelevant in the context of the thread as agreed upon by most posters.
Labeling it clearly would have avoided this confusion and given us a better thread with less nonsense.
You're so cute, I just want to pat you on your fuzzy, big eyed head.
**
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
We know how much subs cost. We know how many subs it would take to make more money than the games on that list. We know that when games have sub numbers that high, they brag about them. We know that no game other than WoW is bragging. The conclusion from all the things we know is not a difficult one. Every game in the MMO space that is competitive with WoW in terms of revenue is F2P. They aren't even freemium, they are straight F2P.
I happen to think freemium is a necessary model (long term, after the launch window milking of box sales and subs) for any new game that includes a sub, but I really, really don't like pure F2P games. The fact that I don't like them doesn't change the reality that they can be fantastic money makers.
Very interesting post. May I ask how you know all this..? (Sounds like one big uneducated guess)
I guess this bears repeating, but I work with top MMORPG developers & work directly with such metrics, being discussed within this thread. Very few within this thread, even remotely understand what these numbers mean.
Nothing in the MMO space is competitive with WoW in terms of sustained revenues.
WoW is what one would call an "anomaly". When a person begins to use World of Warcraft itself, or it's business model in an argument, you have already tipped your hand; of ignorance. You isolate WoW and discuss everything else, to ferret out the true nature of the MMO space.
The idle chatter in this thread is incredible. Even 10 year players can illustrate how skewed many of these arguments are. Yet, undaunted, same people come back with even more absurd posts, based on more opinion. Starting to think there isn't a real community here at MMORPG.
Is there no moderation here, no one who cares and protect this community from trolls?
First, the points where we agree. WoW is certainly an anomaly, but I try to always include it when I make points about what appears to be happening in the market, because if I don't then people will whip out a mention of it as if it is some kind of trump card. And I fully agree, it would be nice if the moderators were more aggressive in dealing with people who are clearly trolling...
Second, a question. Where is your proof that you work with any MMORPG developers, let alone top ones? Or that you work directly with metrics? This being the internet, we really have no reason to believe it just because you claim it, and trying to base your argument on coming from a position of authority only works when you have actually established that you are an authority.
As for how I "know all this," a lot of it is simple math. The normal price for a subscription is 15/month/player. If a player stays subscribed for a whole year, that means $180/year/player. In order to make as much money annually from subscriptions as the number ten game on superdataresearch's list made from it's cash shop, a game would need to average more than 670,000 subscribers over the course of a year. The only current game which we have *any* reason to believe has more subscribers than that is WoW.
Please, if you actually have data that contradicts my analysis, or contradicts superdataresearch's numbers, share it with us. That would give you a lot more credibility than making posts with lots of words that boil down to telling us "I am an expert, and you are wrong" without actually including any content.
Again, when you mention WoW, all you are doing is tipping your hand that you have no other data, or source of point to discuss. It reveals much about the posters actual insight. (Ie: Gibberish)
Secondly, you are under the assumption I have an agenda, or have even discussed these #'s.. I have not yet, because of all the false data. I have only attempted to bring levity and sanity to this discussing, so that we can BEGINE to discuss these figures... without bias.
As for your "math" (another very odd example of non-statistica):
Are you trying to establish that only games with 670,000 players are the only games worth playing, or that F2P games are better than games with 120,000 players..? What are you really saying?
You are mixing & matching two distinct metrics & playing games with numbers. Anyone can do that.
This data all goes back to an earlier post of mine, based on what the Developers demographics is/are... whom.. are these Developers targeting with their game? What type of business model they choose is directly related to the type of customer they want.
Age, income level, education, etc... all play a role in their marketing.
From a Business standpoint: Metrics
You cannot have a discussing about these metrics, without first discussing the demographics of each. Once that is established, you can THEN discuss the metrics.
Additi9nally, there is a common misconception/misdirection within this thread, that Free-to-Play business model & Subscription based model, serve the same populace, or player type & end-user. This is a false misconception & an ignorant mistake.
I cannot legally give additional data, or numbers because I am under contract. But even using several sources one can easily determine that a SINGLE person can have/play 2~7 FREE games. thus inflating the over-all numbers of players who actually play in the MMO space. (They count the same people not twice, but multiple times in the F2P arena, falsely inflating their numbers & the F2P market space.)
For example, when discussing FREE TO PLAY (ie: business model), you have to mention the PEOPLE who play those free to play games. One must then mine that data, to find out why these people are playing FREE games. More often than not, it is because it was simply free, not because they like it, or even want to play it... it was just because it's FREE to try, so why not?
Obviously, no game can survive without revenues, so that is why you have to focus on the PEOPLE who play F2P games, (vs Subs). You have to follow the revenue stream to it's source.
A new hope:
So, can we have an actual civil discussion about what each represents, before you attempt to extrapolate the data?
Because, it is humorous to witness others claim that F2P is compatible with Subscription (vice-versa)... as they serve different PEOPLE & different segments. There is too much bias here, as if.. one business model is better than the other.
I find it hard to believe that someone working "in the industry" is taking such pains to make sure people know they work "in the industry" while at the same time not providing any actual insight. This doesn't indicate anything in particular except your behavior seems to deviate from the behavior of other people that are known to work "in the industry" who also post on these forums. If someone looks at you weird on these forums, that's why.
It's entirely possible for the same person to play one game using only the F2P aspects of the game, and play another game using a subscription. If the same people play several different games (as you said) it seems likely that the same people would use different monetization systems. In some cases they must use different monetization systems since not all games use the same system. Your model above doesn't seem to account for this and it in not doing so contradicts itself a bit.
Anyway, the discussion is about the numbers presented. Since there's no information on the people who make up those numbers, it seems a little pointless to try and direct the conversation to be about those people on which there's no information to present, and which you are unwilling to present information for.
The whole argument can be rebuked with one rhetorical question: If the game was not free, would they (You) even play it..?
YES <--> NO ..??
Business model:
Once you determine the who & if of that^ business equation, you know whether you are building a Free to Play/Try, or a Sub/alternative style of game. Who your customers Are... determine whether you are building an RTS, MMO, Open world, ARTS/MOBA, MMORPG, etc..
We know how much subs cost. We know how many subs it would take to make more money than the games on that list. We know that when games have sub numbers that high, they brag about them. We know that no game other than WoW is bragging. The conclusion from all the things we know is not a difficult one. Every game in the MMO space that is competitive with WoW in terms of revenue is F2P. They aren't even freemium, they are straight F2P.
I happen to think freemium is a necessary model (long term, after the launch window milking of box sales and subs) for any new game that includes a sub, but I really, really don't like pure F2P games. The fact that I don't like them doesn't change the reality that they can be fantastic money makers.
Very interesting post. May I ask how you know all this..? (Sounds like one big uneducated guess)
I guess this bears repeating, but I work with top MMORPG developers & work directly with such metrics, being discussed within this thread. Very few within this thread, even remotely understand what these numbers mean.
Nothing in the MMO space is competitive with WoW in terms of sustained revenues.
WoW is what one would call an "anomaly". When a person begins to use World of Warcraft itself, or it's business model in an argument, you have already tipped your hand; of ignorance. You isolate WoW and discuss everything else, to ferret out the true nature of the MMO space.
The idle chatter in this thread is incredible. Even 10 year players can illustrate how skewed many of these arguments are. Yet, undaunted, same people come back with even more absurd posts, based on more opinion. Starting to think there isn't a real community here at MMORPG.
Is there no moderation here, no one who cares and protect this community from trolls?
First, the points where we agree. WoW is certainly an anomaly, but I try to always include it when I make points about what appears to be happening in the market, because if I don't then people will whip out a mention of it as if it is some kind of trump card. And I fully agree, it would be nice if the moderators were more aggressive in dealing with people who are clearly trolling...
Second, a question. Where is your proof that you work with any MMORPG developers, let alone top ones? Or that you work directly with metrics? This being the internet, we really have no reason to believe it just because you claim it, and trying to base your argument on coming from a position of authority only works when you have actually established that you are an authority.
As for how I "know all this," a lot of it is simple math. The normal price for a subscription is 15/month/player. If a player stays subscribed for a whole year, that means $180/year/player. In order to make as much money annually from subscriptions as the number ten game on superdataresearch's list made from it's cash shop, a game would need to average more than 670,000 subscribers over the course of a year. The only current game which we have *any* reason to believe has more subscribers than that is WoW.
Please, if you actually have data that contradicts my analysis, or contradicts superdataresearch's numbers, share it with us. That would give you a lot more credibility than making posts with lots of words that boil down to telling us "I am an expert, and you are wrong" without actually including any content.
Again, when you mention WoW, all you are doing is tipping your hand that you have no other data, or source of point to discuss. It reveals much about the posters actual insight. (Ie: Gibberish)
Secondly, you are under the assumption I have an agenda, or have even discussed these #'s.. I have not yet, because of all the false data. I have only attempted to bring levity and sanity to this discussing, so that we can BEGINE to discuss these figures... without bias.
As for your "math" (another very odd example of non-statistica):
Are you trying to establish that only games with 670,000 players are the only games worth playing, or that F2P games are better than games with 120,000 players..? What are you really saying?
You are mixing & matching two distinct metrics & playing games with numbers. Anyone can do that.
This data all goes back to an earlier post of mine, based on what the Developers demographics is/are... whom.. are these Developers targeting with their game? What type of business model they choose is directly related to the type of customer they want.
Age, income level, education, etc... all play a role in their marketing.
From a Business standpoint: Metrics
You cannot have a discussing about these metrics, without first discussing the demographics of each. Once that is established, you can THEN discuss the metrics.
Additi9nally, there is a common misconception/misdirection within this thread, that Free-to-Play business model & Subscription based model, serve the same populace, or player type & end-user. This is a false misconception & an ignorant mistake.
I cannot legally give additional data, or numbers because I am under contract. But even using several sources one can easily determine that a SINGLE person can have/play 2~7 FREE games. thus inflating the over-all numbers of players who actually play in the MMO space. (They count the same people not twice, but multiple times in the F2P arena, falsely inflating their numbers & the F2P market space.)
For example, when discussing FREE TO PLAY (ie: business model), you have to mention the PEOPLE who play those free to play games. One must then mine that data, to find out why these people are playing FREE games. More often than not, it is because it was simply free, not because they like it, or even want to play it... it was just because it's FREE to try, so why not?
Obviously, no game can survive without revenues, so that is why you have to focus on the PEOPLE who play F2P games, (vs Subs). You have to follow the revenue stream to it's source.
A new hope:
So, can we have an actual civil discussion about what each represents, before you attempt to extrapolate the data?
Because, it is humorous to witness others claim that F2P is compatible with Subscription (vice-versa)... as they serve different PEOPLE & different segments. There is too much bias here, as if.. one business model is better than the other.
I find it hard to believe that someone working "in the industry" is taking such pains to make sure people know they work "in the industry" while at the same time not providing any actual insight. This doesn't indicate anything in particular except your behavior seems to deviate from the behavior of other people that are known to work "in the industry" who also post on these forums. If someone looks at you weird on these forums, that's why.
It's entirely possible for the same person to play one game using only the F2P aspects of the game, and play another game using a subscription. If the same people play several different games (as you said) it seems likely that the same people would use different monetization systems. In some cases they must use different monetization systems since not all games use the same system. Your model above doesn't seem to account for this and it in not doing so contradicts itself a bit.
Anyway, the discussion is about the numbers presented. Since there's no information on the people who make up those numbers, it seems a little pointless to try and direct the conversation to be about those people on which there's no information to present, and which you are unwilling to present information for.
The whole argument can be rebuked with one rhetorical question: If the game was not free, would they (You) even play it..?
YES <--> NO ..??
Business model:
Once you determine the who & if of that^ business equation, you know whether you are building a Free to Play/Try, or a Sub/alternative style of game. Who your customers Are... determine whether you are building an RTS, MMO, Open world, ARTS/MOBA, MMORPG, etc..
Are you sure this was a response to me? Because my argument amounts to you not sounding like someone who actually works "in the industry", that individuals who play many different games are likely to play games with many different kinds of monetization systems, and that the discussion is about revenue generated by markets, not the individuals who make up those markets.
Your rhetorical question doesn't make sense. For one, you supplied a couple of answer options. Rhetorical questions are really just statements phrased as questions because there's only one answer. Supplying answer options implies it's not a rhetorical question. Since the answer really depends on the person you are asking, and the game they are playing, it can't be a rhetorical question. Finally, answering the question doesn't supply any new information. We already know that many people would not be playing many of the F2P games available if they had to pay money to get into the game.
This is what I meant by purporting to work in the industry but not adding any additional insight. You're making a big deal about people not paying any money in F2P games, but we already knew those people existed. It would be strange if they didn't. Even for WoW there are people who would have no interest in playing the game unless they could play for free. Same thing for Eve and any other game you could find. Open a game or some portion of a game's content to players for free, and some percentage of those players would only play the game because it's free. In existing F2P games, my guess would be all the players who didn't pay any money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It's not about one model being "better," it's about whether F2P (cash shops) bring in more revenue than P2P (subscriptions.) "Better" is a value judgment, and completely irrelevant. We're talking about numbers. Do we have direct access to all the relevant data? No. But we do have this report, which as far as I can tell is the most reliable comprehensive look at the numbers in question which is available to the public. Do you have a specific reason to doubt that this is the case? If so, please, as I have already asked you multiple times, tell us what the superior source is (and why it is superior) so that we can work from it instead.
What I posted above about Blizzard always had a cash shop, and folks ignoring that fact, makes such F2P "stats" meaningless.
Why?
Because to hype F2P as a means to make more money, the stat jugglers have to ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room -- who already had a cash shop even before the F2P craze.
I'm not following your logic here. "Cash shops have existed for a very long time in one form or another, so cash shops generating most of the revenue in the MMO space is meaningless". How do we get from point A to point B? How is it meaningless that games which would otherwise have shutdown continue to run and generate a lot of revenue by changing their monetization system?
This forum is almost impossible to use, half the features don't work in either IE or FF and simple cut and paste operations resemble the Windows Vista nightmare. Or worse, attempts to delete a sentence acts as a back button. -_-
It's this simple: to get to point A to point B, in this stat juggle, is by ignoring the 800lb gorilla.
When stats promoted as proof are presented with exclusions and exceptions (like excluding data from the largest MMO because it's subscriber based...yet ignores it's cash shop), it's a nut shell game more than evidence.
It's the epitome of confirmation bias.
If folks are going to judge the MMO pay model overall, ALL pay models and their systems are to be included...not selectively.
Are you sure this was a response to me? Because my argument amounts to you not sounding like someone who actually works "in the industry", that individuals who play many different games are likely to play games with many different kinds of monetization systems, and that the discussion is about revenue generated by markets, not the individuals who make up those markets.
Why would people who play multiple games necessarily try multiple payment models?
Look at Nari, he plays lots of games yet follows one payment model that allows him to do so without playing, the draw in this case would be the 'free' factor. Why then would he try a different payment model?
I would find it more believable that those paying subscriptions would be more likely to follow one game (maximizing their subscriptions return) whilst those playing free games more likely to indulge in more titles due to the lack of a barrier to entry.
Though, as you, I have no evidence to support this and it could be completely wrong.
Though I do agree that the line 'I work in the industry' is massively overused (half of this forum seem to at various times) and as such means nothing without proof (which if true would be hard to due thanks to likely stipulations in contracts).
Look at Nari, he plays lots of games yet follows one payment model that allows him to do so without playing, the draw in this case would be the 'free' factor. Why then would he try a different payment model?
It's not about one model being "better," it's about whether F2P (cash shops) bring in more revenue than P2P (subscriptions.) "Better" is a value judgment, and completely irrelevant. We're talking about numbers. Do we have direct access to all the relevant data? No. But we do have this report, which as far as I can tell is the most reliable comprehensive look at the numbers in question which is available to the public. Do you have a specific reason to doubt that this is the case? If so, please, as I have already asked you multiple times, tell us what the superior source is (and why it is superior) so that we can work from it instead.
What I posted above about Blizzard always had a cash shop, and folks ignoring that fact, makes such F2P "stats" meaningless.
Why?
Because to hype F2P as a means to make more money, the stat jugglers have to ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room -- who already had a cash shop even before the F2P craze.
I'm not following your logic here. "Cash shops have existed for a very long time in one form or another, so cash shops generating most of the revenue in the MMO space is meaningless". How do we get from point A to point B? How is it meaningless that games which would otherwise have shutdown continue to run and generate a lot of revenue by changing their monetization system?
This forum is almost impossible to use, half the features don't work in either IE or FF and simple cut and paste operations resemble the Windows Vista nightmare. Or worse, attempts to delete a sentence acts as a back button. -_-
It's this simple: to get to point A to point B, in this stat juggle, is by ignoring the 800lb gorilla.
When stats promoted as proof are presented with exclusions and exceptions (like excluding data from the largest MMO because it's subscriber based...yet ignores it's cash shop), it's a nut shell game more than evidence.
It's the epitome of confirmation bias.
If folks are going to judge the MMO pay model overall, ALL pay models and their systems are to be included...not selectively.
Some people might be deliberately ignoring that the information is exclusive to digital sales. Which really isn't surprising, but it should be noted that it only displays digital sales. However, we can add to this a tiny bit by showing that digital sales cover $11.7B/$11/8B worth of the US market with physical sales totalling $6.2B of the market. The digital sales market is not only larger, it's also more likely to be representative of the future.
Anyway, adding in the $1.26B WoW made in 2013 from its 7 million subscriber equivalents worldwide, it still doesn't take the $1.1B in digital subscriptions above the $2.9B in F2P digital revenue in the United States. This is of course assuming that none of the subscription revenue shown comes from WoW. So even including the gorilla's worldwide revenue, F2P pulled in more money in 2013 in the United States.
I have no suggestions for the post editor. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Experience doesn't seem to offer any sort of innoculation against things going awry with it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Some people might be deliberately ignoring that the information is exclusive to digital sales. Which really isn't surprising, but it should be noted that it only displays digital sales. However, we can add to this a tiny bit by showing that digital sales cover $11.7B/$11/8B worth of the US market with physical sales totalling $6.2B of the market. The digital sales market is not only larger, it's also more likely to be representative of the future.
Anyway, adding in the $1.26B WoW made in 2013 from its 7 million subscriber equivalents worldwide, it still doesn't take the $1.1B in digital subscriptions above the $2.9B in F2P digital revenue in the United States. This is of course assuming that none of the subscription revenue shown comes from WoW. So even including the gorilla's worldwide revenue, F2P pulled in more money in 2013 in the United States.
I have no suggestions for the post editor. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Experience doesn't seem to offer any sort of innoculation against things going awry with it.
It is a somewhat pointless comparison though.
How much revenue a method made is kinda meaningless, unless you also include how many competitors are in each segment / how saturated they are / if there is a difference in profit margins / if games in the different segments have different lifespans in comparison / etc.
Unless our main quest is indeed to compare arbitrary single values between the two methods without pulling any useful information out of our result. Then.. yay. F2P wins.
In unrelated news.. holy cow, that linked page.. I couldn't present data in a more confusing, messy way if I wanted to.
Are you sure this was a response to me? Because my argument amounts to you not sounding like someone who actually works "in the industry", that individuals who play many different games are likely to play games with many different kinds of monetization systems, and that the discussion is about revenue generated by markets, not the individuals who make up those markets.
Why would people who play multiple games necessarily try multiple payment models?
Look at Nari, he plays lots of games yet follows one payment model that allows him to do so without playing, the draw in this case would be the 'free' factor. Why then would he try a different payment model?
I would find it more believable that those paying subscriptions would be more likely to follow one game (maximizing their subscriptions return) whilst those playing free games more likely to indulge in more titles due to the lack of a barrier to entry.
Though, as you, I have no evidence to support this and it could be completely wrong.
Though I do agree that the line 'I work in the industry' is massively overused (half of this forum seem to at various times) and as such means nothing without proof (which if true would be hard to due thanks to likely stipulations in contracts).
That's just it though. What if all the people who don't pay anything in game A never pay anything in any game? What if they are all like Nari? The F2P monetization system still requires some free content to get the people who would pay in the door. The people who never pay anything are just part of the system. You can't have the one without the other. This isn't a dramatic revelation, this is just how it works.
There are times when I think people posting on forums should have to provide their real identity. It would make things like knowing who actually does what. Then I slap myself in the brain and stop thinking stupid things like that. :-)
**
I do agree that the F2P portion of the charts would be better called "MTX" or something similar. F2P monetization includes people who don't pay any money and also includes the possiblity of a subscription. "MTX" more accurately describes where the money is coming from. This is just a semantic nitpick though. We know what "F2P means in the infographics.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
That's just it though. What if all the people who don't pay anything in game A never pay anything in any game? What if they are all like Nari? The F2P monetization system still requires some free content to get the people who would pay in the door. The people who never pay anything are just part of the system. You can't have the one without the other. This isn't a dramatic revelation, this is just how it works.
Agreed.
These are people who are not in the revenue statistic but still have an effect on the cost side of things.
Which is why we need more data than just revenue to assess their influence.
Anyway, adding in the $1.26B WoW made in 2013 from its 7 million subscriber equivalents worldwide, it still doesn't take the $1.1B in digital subscriptions above the $2.9B in F2P digital revenue in the United States. This is of course assuming that none of the subscription revenue shown comes from WoW. So even including the gorilla's worldwide revenue, F2P pulled in more money in 2013 in the United States.
I have no suggestions for the post editor. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Experience doesn't seem to offer any sort of innoculation against things going awry with it.
COMBINED total.
If you took ALL of the fast food burger joints and put in the total sales dollars for ALL, they'll beat McDonald's. But McDonald's still sells the most for one franchise, as it tops the market share.
1 = 101 other chains in total sales =/= 101 other chains make more money.
The forum is old. This is how the forum was since 2008, and the controls reflect it (our browsers have evolved; the forums hasn't been upgraded to follow).
Anyway, adding in the $1.26B WoW made in 2013 from its 7 million subscriber equivalents worldwide, it still doesn't take the $1.1B in digital subscriptions above the $2.9B in F2P digital revenue in the United States. This is of course assuming that none of the subscription revenue shown comes from WoW. So even including the gorilla's worldwide revenue, F2P pulled in more money in 2013 in the United States.
I have no suggestions for the post editor. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Experience doesn't seem to offer any sort of innoculation against things going awry with it.
COMBINED total.
If you took ALL of the fast food burger joints and put in the total sales dollars for ALL, they'll beat McDonald's. But McDonald's still sells the most for one franchise, as it tops the market share.
1 = 101 other chains in total sales =/= 101 other chains make more money.
The forum is old. This is how the forum was since 2008, and the controls reflect it (our browsers have evolved; the forums hasn't been upgraded to follow).
What other subscription based MMORPG exists, much less exists at a scale that would register in the billions of dollars? We have Eve with half a million subscriptions (90 million for the year), and then we have a bunch of games that literally would not register. If we're talking subscription sales versus MTX sales, then WoW is the only non-digital subscription game that matters.
**
The lack of games with a subscription is indicative of something here. Subscriptions are just harder to make work.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Are you sure this was a response to me? Because my argument amounts to you not sounding like someone who actually works "in the industry", that individuals who play many different games are likely to play games with many different kinds of monetization systems, and that the discussion is about revenue generated by markets, not the individuals who make up those markets.
Why would people who play multiple games necessarily try multiple payment models?
Look at Nari, he plays lots of games yet follows one payment model that allows him to do so without playing, the draw in this case would be the 'free' factor. Why then would he try a different payment model?
I would find it more believable that those paying subscriptions would be more likely to follow one game (maximizing their subscriptions return) whilst those playing free games more likely to indulge in more titles due to the lack of a barrier to entry.
Though, as you, I have no evidence to support this and it could be completely wrong.
Though I do agree that the line 'I work in the industry' is massively overused (half of this forum seem to at various times) and as such means nothing without proof (which if true would be hard to due thanks to likely stipulations in contracts).
That's just it though. What if all the people who don't pay anything in game A never pay anything in any game? What if they are all like Nari? The F2P monetization system still requires some free content to get the people who would pay in the door. The people who never pay anything are just part of the system. You can't have the one without the other. This isn't a dramatic revelation, this is just how it works.
My post was in relation to your assumption of players playing multiple games using multiple models. The description of Nari went toward the likelihood that people playing free usually play more free games rather than some sub based ones. In no part was my post aimed at free players not providing content or how the F2P model works, then again I have a suspicion you knew that and chose to deflect rather than address the point.
Anyway, adding in the $1.26B WoW made in 2013 from its 7 million subscriber equivalents worldwide, it still doesn't take the $1.1B in digital subscriptions above the $2.9B in F2P digital revenue in the United States. This is of course assuming that none of the subscription revenue shown comes from WoW. So even including the gorilla's worldwide revenue, F2P pulled in more money in 2013 in the United States.
I have no suggestions for the post editor. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Experience doesn't seem to offer any sort of innoculation against things going awry with it.
COMBINED total.
If you took ALL of the fast food burger joints and put in the total sales dollars for ALL, they'll beat McDonald's. But McDonald's still sells the most for one franchise, as it tops the market share.
1 = 101 other chains in total sales =/= 101 other chains make more money.
The forum is old. This is how the forum was since 2008, and the controls reflect it (our browsers have evolved; the forums hasn't been upgraded to follow).
What other subscription based MMORPG exists, much less exists at a scale that would register in the billions of dollars? We have Eve with half a million subscriptions (90 million for the year), and then we have a bunch of games that literally would not register. If we're talking subscription sales versus MTX sales, then WoW is the only non-digital subscription game that matters.
**
The lack of games with a subscription is indicative of something here. Subscriptions are just harder to make work.
I find subscriptions much better over all than seeing BUY BUY BUY all over the landscape in the cheesiest manner known (Farmville2 here's looking at you!). Much easier to budget and since I'm paying for a service, I expect service in return. That includes bug fixes and fixing stupid mechanics that have 25 Holy paladins out of 480 as top healers in SoO. -_-
Are you sure this was a response to me? Because my argument amounts to you not sounding like someone who actually works "in the industry", that individuals who play many different games are likely to play games with many different kinds of monetization systems, and that the discussion is about revenue generated by markets, not the individuals who make up those markets.
Why would people who play multiple games necessarily try multiple payment models?
Look at Nari, he plays lots of games yet follows one payment model that allows him to do so without playing, the draw in this case would be the 'free' factor. Why then would he try a different payment model?
I would find it more believable that those paying subscriptions would be more likely to follow one game (maximizing their subscriptions return) whilst those playing free games more likely to indulge in more titles due to the lack of a barrier to entry.
Though, as you, I have no evidence to support this and it could be completely wrong.
Though I do agree that the line 'I work in the industry' is massively overused (half of this forum seem to at various times) and as such means nothing without proof (which if true would be hard to due thanks to likely stipulations in contracts).
That's just it though. What if all the people who don't pay anything in game A never pay anything in any game? What if they are all like Nari? The F2P monetization system still requires some free content to get the people who would pay in the door. The people who never pay anything are just part of the system. You can't have the one without the other. This isn't a dramatic revelation, this is just how it works.
My post was in relation to your assumption of players playing multiple games using multiple models. The description of Nari went toward the likelihood that people playing free usually play more free games rather than some sub based ones. In no part was my post aimed at free players not providing content or how the F2P model works, then again I have a suspicion you knew that and chose to deflect rather than address the point.
I'm saying it doesn't matter either way. Look at the market rather than individuals. It doesn't matter if the people who don't pay in one game never pay in any game. At the level of a market, it's the same thing as some people paying in one game but not another because if the people who don't pay in one game never pay any money, it means that the people who pay in one game pay in other games. The end result is 40% of people not paying any money to play video games.
That there are people who don't pay or never pay isn't a revelation, it's just how F2P works. In order to get the people who pay in the door, the Free Content must exist. If the Free Content exists, there are people who will consume it and not pay any money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If you are playing a P2P MMO you are almost certainly only playing one. If you play F2P you may be playing several at once. As has been pointed out this vastly over inflates the number of F2P players.
But this sort of issue is just ignored by these data sites, It should not be surprising then, that many of us doubt the sites conclusions
If you are playing a P2P MMO you are almost certainly only playing one. If you play F2P you may be playing several at once. As has been pointed out this vastly over inflates the number of F2P players.
But this sort of issue is just ignored by these data sites, It should not be surprising then, that many of us doubt the sites conclusions
This idea keeps coming up. With no information to actually back it up. I've played games I've paid for, F2P games and a subscription game all at the same time. It's not surprising that you think they are ignoring information when you are generalizing based on information you don't have. The company producing the infographic is at least collecting information directly from the developers.
My question, which hasn't been answered, is why does it matter? Short of collecting personal information that players do not want collected it's not going to be very feasible to determine if the player in game A is the same player in game B. If it's the same player in game A and game B, this doesn't change the % of people who aren't paying overall. If the number of players is inflated, the number of non-paying players is inflated as well.
When talking about subscriptions or box sales, nobody gets all up in arms about double counting players. Raph Koster posted on this forum that even when cash shops were few and far between paying players averaged more than $15 a month because they would have multiple subscriptions in the same game. Paying players are being double counted too. Me thinks that the issue is F2P, the dislike of the idea of F2P and the dislike of F2P's obvious financial advantages when publishing games, not the double counting of players that's the issue here.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
....and the dislike of F2P's obvious financial advantages when publishing games, not the double counting of players that's the issue here.
This here is the crux of the issue.
The data supports the market for F2P games is larger than P2P. That is not only reasonable, it's believable and damn near obvious given the number of games existing under that model and the success of MOBAs and the rising mobile markets.
The problem comes from the fact that number of titles is not used, therefore it is implied that because the market is larger the games are more successful on a per game basis, this doesn't have to the case, and likely isn't given the lack of P2P games remaining (as those figures pretty much include all MMORPGs using the freemium models) compared to the flood of F2P titles. The data doesn't show that the models are more successful per title, as much as some people want to believe it does. Without a per title count for revenue and more individual title analysis the only thing you can reliably say is that the F2P market gets more money, anything else is speculation and bias (other than cash shop based models make more from cash shops than sub based games make from cash shops - who would have thought it?).
In essence you are arguing that people dislike the F2P model and exhibit bias, while ignoring your own bias in promoting it.
....and the dislike of F2P's obvious financial advantages when publishing games, not the double counting of players that's the issue here.
This here is the crux of the issue.
The data supports the market for F2P games is larger than P2P. That is not only reasonable, it's believable and damn near obvious given the number of games existing under that model and the success of MOBAs and the rising mobile markets.
The problem comes from the fact that number of titles is not used, therefore it is implied that because the market is larger the games are more successful on a per game basis, this doesn't have to the case, and likely isn't given the lack of P2P games remaining (as those figures pretty much include all MMORPGs using the freemium models) compared to the flood of F2P titles. The data doesn't show that the models are more successful per title, as much as some people want to believe it does. Without a per title count for revenue and more individual title analysis the only thing you can reliably say is that the F2P market gets more money, anything else is speculation and bias (other than cash shop based models make more from cash shops than sub based games make from cash shops - who would have thought it?).
In essence you are arguing that people dislike the F2P model and exhibit bias, while ignoring your own bias in promoting it.
Is it theoretically possible, given the number of F2P games, that the average F2P game makes less than the average sub-only game (a category so tiny as to be almost non-existent at this point, even WoW has a cash shop and twenty free levels). Sure, it's possible, but we don't have any numbers on that. The numbers we do have don't answer that question. Those numbers only tell us two things relevant to this discussion; that, adding all the games together, the F2P category brings in more than the P2P category, and that every one of the top ten cash shops brings in more revenue than any game other than WoW does from subs.
So, you are correct that we don't have any data which allows us to reasonably make claims about what is true of the "average" game. But we can say with a high degree of confidence that, with only two exceptions, the games at the very top of the market are pure cash shop games, and the two exceptions have both cash shops and subs. So if a developer had the goal of trying to produce a top ten game, it is highly unlikely that developer would fail to incorporate a cash shop at some point in the product's lifecycle.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
This is old news, DDO told us years ago that F2P was more profitable, and proved it again when LOTRO went F2P. SWTOR admitted their ship was sinking until they went F2P as we
So if a developer had the goal of trying to produce a top ten game, it is highly unlikely that developer would fail to incorporate a cash shop at some point in the product's lifecycle.
That I actually agree with. I have actually never argued that. I actually believe the most profitable route is launching P2P then transitioning to Freemium at some stage after release when box sales and subscription numbers fall. A cash shop could if the game proves popular be introduced prior to a freemium conversion for cosmetic items to further increase profit.
What I have argued is that the figures do not show what the OP and many others are trying to say they do...that F2P games are more successful than P2P counterparts. Which as I have said would require more data than we have. We can merely argue as to the market share of the models in question with any reliability.
That I actually agree with. I have actually never argued that. I actually believe the most profitable route is launching P2P then transitioning to Freemium at some stage after release when box sales and subscription numbers fall. A cash shop could if the game proves popular be introduced prior to a freemium conversion for cosmetic items to further increase profit.
What I have argued is that the figures do not show what the OP and many others are trying to say they do...that F2P games are more successful than P2P counterparts. Which as I have said would require more data than we have. We can merely argue as to the market share of the models in question with any reliability.
To a certain extent, it depends on how you are defining the terms. All cash shop revenue is reported as F2P revenue, even WoW's despite the fact that it clearly isn't a F2P game. So when looking at reports about the numbers, we aren't even actually looking at F2P vs P2P, it's technically mislabeled. The numbers we are looking at are cash shop vs. subscription. And what those numbers appear to be telling us is that while there is a reasonable debate to be had about whether it is better to do cash shop only or a combination of cash shop with subscription, either of those approaches is vastly superior to subscription only.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Comments
I think one of the problems is that people are discussing two things in this thread, and some of the terminology is used with very different meanings in those contexts.
The majority is discussing F2P (as in free to play for the players) and P2P as monetization methods, some people are on the topic of "the advantages of having a cash shop (or adding it to a P2P game)". In the second context, they use "F2P" as synonym for "cash shop" or "cash shop earnings" and it has nothing to do with players being able to play the game for free or not.
Now, if suddenly adding a totally new meaning to a term used a lot in the main context of the thread instead of using clear (as in unique to your context) terminology is bad form or not is topic for an other discussion, so let's just leave it at that.
One more thing to note:
If you start a discussion that is labeled "F2P vs P2P" in a forum clearly labeled "MMORPG discussions ONLY. Take other discussions to the appropiate forum" but intend to discuss non-MMORPG specific data (the list linked is full of FPS, Beat'em'up, MOBA and Kids game data and thus isn't applicable to a MMORPG specific discussion), then please clearly label the thread as such.
Obviously (judging from a huge majority of the posts) most people who entered the thread later understood it as MMORPG specific discussion (and rightfully so, seeing in which forum it is posted). Thus the data shown is irrelevant in the context of the thread as agreed upon by most posters.
Labeling it clearly would have avoided this confusion and given us a better thread with less nonsense.
You're so cute, I just want to pat you on your fuzzy, big eyed head.
**
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The whole argument can be rebuked with one rhetorical question: If the game was not free, would they (You) even play it..?
YES <--> NO ..??
Business model:
Once you determine the who & if of that^ business equation, you know whether you are building a Free to Play/Try, or a Sub/alternative style of game. Who your customers Are... determine whether you are building an RTS, MMO, Open world, ARTS/MOBA, MMORPG, etc..
Hahaha, OK, I admit my last sentence was just wishful thinking
Are you sure this was a response to me? Because my argument amounts to you not sounding like someone who actually works "in the industry", that individuals who play many different games are likely to play games with many different kinds of monetization systems, and that the discussion is about revenue generated by markets, not the individuals who make up those markets.
Your rhetorical question doesn't make sense. For one, you supplied a couple of answer options. Rhetorical questions are really just statements phrased as questions because there's only one answer. Supplying answer options implies it's not a rhetorical question. Since the answer really depends on the person you are asking, and the game they are playing, it can't be a rhetorical question. Finally, answering the question doesn't supply any new information. We already know that many people would not be playing many of the F2P games available if they had to pay money to get into the game.
This is what I meant by purporting to work in the industry but not adding any additional insight. You're making a big deal about people not paying any money in F2P games, but we already knew those people existed. It would be strange if they didn't. Even for WoW there are people who would have no interest in playing the game unless they could play for free. Same thing for Eve and any other game you could find. Open a game or some portion of a game's content to players for free, and some percentage of those players would only play the game because it's free. In existing F2P games, my guess would be all the players who didn't pay any money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This forum is almost impossible to use, half the features don't work in either IE or FF and simple cut and paste operations resemble the Windows Vista nightmare. Or worse, attempts to delete a sentence acts as a back button. -_-
It's this simple: to get to point A to point B, in this stat juggle, is by ignoring the 800lb gorilla.
When stats promoted as proof are presented with exclusions and exceptions (like excluding data from the largest MMO because it's subscriber based...yet ignores it's cash shop), it's a nut shell game more than evidence.
It's the epitome of confirmation bias.
If folks are going to judge the MMO pay model overall, ALL pay models and their systems are to be included...not selectively.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Why would people who play multiple games necessarily try multiple payment models?
Look at Nari, he plays lots of games yet follows one payment model that allows him to do so without playing, the draw in this case would be the 'free' factor. Why then would he try a different payment model?
I would find it more believable that those paying subscriptions would be more likely to follow one game (maximizing their subscriptions return) whilst those playing free games more likely to indulge in more titles due to the lack of a barrier to entry.
Though, as you, I have no evidence to support this and it could be completely wrong.
Though I do agree that the line 'I work in the industry' is massively overused (half of this forum seem to at various times) and as such means nothing without proof (which if true would be hard to due thanks to likely stipulations in contracts).
lololol
THE laugh of the day!
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Some people might be deliberately ignoring that the information is exclusive to digital sales. Which really isn't surprising, but it should be noted that it only displays digital sales. However, we can add to this a tiny bit by showing that digital sales cover $11.7B/$11/8B worth of the US market with physical sales totalling $6.2B of the market. The digital sales market is not only larger, it's also more likely to be representative of the future.
http://www.superdataresearch.com/blog/infographic-digital-games-year-review-2013/
Anyway, adding in the $1.26B WoW made in 2013 from its 7 million subscriber equivalents worldwide, it still doesn't take the $1.1B in digital subscriptions above the $2.9B in F2P digital revenue in the United States. This is of course assuming that none of the subscription revenue shown comes from WoW. So even including the gorilla's worldwide revenue, F2P pulled in more money in 2013 in the United States.
I have no suggestions for the post editor. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Experience doesn't seem to offer any sort of innoculation against things going awry with it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It is a somewhat pointless comparison though.
How much revenue a method made is kinda meaningless, unless you also include how many competitors are in each segment / how saturated they are / if there is a difference in profit margins / if games in the different segments have different lifespans in comparison / etc.
Unless our main quest is indeed to compare arbitrary single values between the two methods without pulling any useful information out of our result. Then.. yay. F2P wins.
In unrelated news.. holy cow, that linked page.. I couldn't present data in a more confusing, messy way if I wanted to.
That's just it though. What if all the people who don't pay anything in game A never pay anything in any game? What if they are all like Nari? The F2P monetization system still requires some free content to get the people who would pay in the door. The people who never pay anything are just part of the system. You can't have the one without the other. This isn't a dramatic revelation, this is just how it works.
There are times when I think people posting on forums should have to provide their real identity. It would make things like knowing who actually does what. Then I slap myself in the brain and stop thinking stupid things like that. :-)
**
I do agree that the F2P portion of the charts would be better called "MTX" or something similar. F2P monetization includes people who don't pay any money and also includes the possiblity of a subscription. "MTX" more accurately describes where the money is coming from. This is just a semantic nitpick though. We know what "F2P means in the infographics.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Agreed.
These are people who are not in the revenue statistic but still have an effect on the cost side of things.
Which is why we need more data than just revenue to assess their influence.
COMBINED total.
If you took ALL of the fast food burger joints and put in the total sales dollars for ALL, they'll beat McDonald's. But McDonald's still sells the most for one franchise, as it tops the market share.
1 = 101 other chains in total sales =/= 101 other chains make more money.
The forum is old. This is how the forum was since 2008, and the controls reflect it (our browsers have evolved; the forums hasn't been upgraded to follow).
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
What other subscription based MMORPG exists, much less exists at a scale that would register in the billions of dollars? We have Eve with half a million subscriptions (90 million for the year), and then we have a bunch of games that literally would not register. If we're talking subscription sales versus MTX sales, then WoW is the only non-digital subscription game that matters.
**
The lack of games with a subscription is indicative of something here. Subscriptions are just harder to make work.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
My post was in relation to your assumption of players playing multiple games using multiple models. The description of Nari went toward the likelihood that people playing free usually play more free games rather than some sub based ones. In no part was my post aimed at free players not providing content or how the F2P model works, then again I have a suspicion you knew that and chose to deflect rather than address the point.
I find subscriptions much better over all than seeing BUY BUY BUY all over the landscape in the cheesiest manner known (Farmville2 here's looking at you!). Much easier to budget and since I'm paying for a service, I expect service in return. That includes bug fixes and fixing stupid mechanics that have 25 Holy paladins out of 480 as top healers in SoO. -_-
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
I'm saying it doesn't matter either way. Look at the market rather than individuals. It doesn't matter if the people who don't pay in one game never pay in any game. At the level of a market, it's the same thing as some people paying in one game but not another because if the people who don't pay in one game never pay any money, it means that the people who pay in one game pay in other games. The end result is 40% of people not paying any money to play video games.
That there are people who don't pay or never pay isn't a revelation, it's just how F2P works. In order to get the people who pay in the door, the Free Content must exist. If the Free Content exists, there are people who will consume it and not pay any money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If you are playing a P2P MMO you are almost certainly only playing one. If you play F2P you may be playing several at once. As has been pointed out this vastly over inflates the number of F2P players.
But this sort of issue is just ignored by these data sites, It should not be surprising then, that many of us doubt the sites conclusions
This idea keeps coming up. With no information to actually back it up. I've played games I've paid for, F2P games and a subscription game all at the same time. It's not surprising that you think they are ignoring information when you are generalizing based on information you don't have. The company producing the infographic is at least collecting information directly from the developers.
My question, which hasn't been answered, is why does it matter? Short of collecting personal information that players do not want collected it's not going to be very feasible to determine if the player in game A is the same player in game B. If it's the same player in game A and game B, this doesn't change the % of people who aren't paying overall. If the number of players is inflated, the number of non-paying players is inflated as well.
When talking about subscriptions or box sales, nobody gets all up in arms about double counting players. Raph Koster posted on this forum that even when cash shops were few and far between paying players averaged more than $15 a month because they would have multiple subscriptions in the same game. Paying players are being double counted too. Me thinks that the issue is F2P, the dislike of the idea of F2P and the dislike of F2P's obvious financial advantages when publishing games, not the double counting of players that's the issue here.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This here is the crux of the issue.
The data supports the market for F2P games is larger than P2P. That is not only reasonable, it's believable and damn near obvious given the number of games existing under that model and the success of MOBAs and the rising mobile markets.
The problem comes from the fact that number of titles is not used, therefore it is implied that because the market is larger the games are more successful on a per game basis, this doesn't have to the case, and likely isn't given the lack of P2P games remaining (as those figures pretty much include all MMORPGs using the freemium models) compared to the flood of F2P titles. The data doesn't show that the models are more successful per title, as much as some people want to believe it does. Without a per title count for revenue and more individual title analysis the only thing you can reliably say is that the F2P market gets more money, anything else is speculation and bias (other than cash shop based models make more from cash shops than sub based games make from cash shops - who would have thought it?).
In essence you are arguing that people dislike the F2P model and exhibit bias, while ignoring your own bias in promoting it.
Is it theoretically possible, given the number of F2P games, that the average F2P game makes less than the average sub-only game (a category so tiny as to be almost non-existent at this point, even WoW has a cash shop and twenty free levels). Sure, it's possible, but we don't have any numbers on that. The numbers we do have don't answer that question. Those numbers only tell us two things relevant to this discussion; that, adding all the games together, the F2P category brings in more than the P2P category, and that every one of the top ten cash shops brings in more revenue than any game other than WoW does from subs.
So, you are correct that we don't have any data which allows us to reasonably make claims about what is true of the "average" game. But we can say with a high degree of confidence that, with only two exceptions, the games at the very top of the market are pure cash shop games, and the two exceptions have both cash shops and subs. So if a developer had the goal of trying to produce a top ten game, it is highly unlikely that developer would fail to incorporate a cash shop at some point in the product's lifecycle.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
That I actually agree with. I have actually never argued that. I actually believe the most profitable route is launching P2P then transitioning to Freemium at some stage after release when box sales and subscription numbers fall. A cash shop could if the game proves popular be introduced prior to a freemium conversion for cosmetic items to further increase profit.
What I have argued is that the figures do not show what the OP and many others are trying to say they do...that F2P games are more successful than P2P counterparts. Which as I have said would require more data than we have. We can merely argue as to the market share of the models in question with any reliability.
To a certain extent, it depends on how you are defining the terms. All cash shop revenue is reported as F2P revenue, even WoW's despite the fact that it clearly isn't a F2P game. So when looking at reports about the numbers, we aren't even actually looking at F2P vs P2P, it's technically mislabeled. The numbers we are looking at are cash shop vs. subscription. And what those numbers appear to be telling us is that while there is a reasonable debate to be had about whether it is better to do cash shop only or a combination of cash shop with subscription, either of those approaches is vastly superior to subscription only.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.