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.
The problem is we don't have any real data on that breakdown at all (cash shop vs subscriptions), beyond that top 10 cash shop list of 2013, which itself would be the tip of the iceberg of the market itself. F2P market share includes the subs for Freemium games as well as cash shop in the Superdata data of the past, I have no reason to believe they changed that recently nor any indication on their site.
....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.
I never said F2P is more successful on a per game basis based on the supplied infographic. If I was going to do that, I'd point to the games that would otherwise be shutting down if not for the F2P transitions they made.
But looking at this point, how does this change F2P generating more revenue than subscriptions? It does. How does more games adopting a F2P monetization system equate to it not being a better system for generating revenue? At what point does more people playing games for free equate to a worse state for consumers? When the average amount of money paid per player drops from $22 to $16*, how is this worse for consumers? There are some very clear economic stats that point to F2P as being better for developers, publishers and players.
At the same time, it's silly for developers and publishers to throw away all the revenue gained by having a subscription and a box sale, even if they aren't going to maintain that system through the lifetime of their game. Not having a subscription or subscription with a cash shop throws away revenue just the same as not eventually going F2P throws away revenue.
So my bias, that you've so expertly brought to the fore is that games should use the monetization system that generates the most revenue. For some games this means starting with a subscription and running with it as long as possible, and for other games this means starting with F2P right out of the gate. As far as F2P generating more revenue, this is inevitable. If games that would otherwise shutdown keep running because of their F2P revenue, the F2P revenue is going to stack up in a way that subscription revenues cannot. F2P isn't "better", it's just inevitable. "F2P is better" way oversimplifies my bias.
An addendum to my bias, in case anyone is wondering, is that I haven't particularly enjoyed any "pure" F2P games. That said, I haven't particularly enjoyed games that started with a sub and then later went F2P either. Most of them I played before the transition and found them to not be a whole lot of fun so the F2P transition didn't really make any difference. I have found that the B2P games I've purchased and then played have been the most enjoyable per dollar spent. I would rank all of the B2P games I've purchased at the top of my list of favorite games. WoW has the most hours played, making it the most expensive, but also one of the most fun. So I suppose I am ignoring my own personal bias to see the economic benefits of F2P as a system for generating revenue and providing economic value to players since I don't particularly like any of the F2P games and one of my favorite games is a subscription game that double dips into cash shop territory.
* This is an increase in dollars spent per player. It used to be $12. The overall number of players has dropped and the number of Subscription and F2P players has dropped as well. They're all just spending more money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The problem is we don't have any real data on that breakdown at all (cash shop vs subscriptions), beyond that top 10 cash shop list of 2013, which itself would be the tip of the iceberg of the market itself. F2P market share includes the subs for Freemium games as well as cash shop in the Superdata data of the past, I have no reason to believe they changed that recently nor any indication on their site.
The current report, in the section discussing P2P game revenue, specifically refers to LotRO, which implies that it is counting at least the subscription portion of that revenue as subscription revenue since LotRO has been Freemium for a long time.
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.
The problem is we don't have any real data on that breakdown at all (cash shop vs subscriptions), beyond that top 10 cash shop list of 2013, which itself would be the tip of the iceberg of the market itself. F2P market share includes the subs for Freemium games as well as cash shop in the Superdata data of the past, I have no reason to believe they changed that recently nor any indication on their site.
The current report, in the section discussing P2P game revenue, specifically refers to LotRO, which implies that it is counting at least the subscription portion of that revenue as subscription revenue since LotRO has been Freemium for a long time.
It also mentions micro transactions in the P2P section (accounting for 21% monthly revenue). WoW (as an example) has had a cash shop for quite some time too...
Muddy waters? As I have said before I dislike their delivery of the data for any useful reasoning (beyond acquiring their full reports) as the website is more of a sales pitch for larger companies to use them than for any meaningful arguments on a gaming forum.
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.
No, the question was not directed at you personally. (Just that you are visible & engaging person)
The rest of your post is non-sequitur and does not relate to any statistics, or data-sets.
And once again, I am unable to provide ADDITIONAL information because I am under contract. Though, that does not restrict me from being kind to this community, & discussing any information You People decide to source up. Problem is, there is no sense in discussing actual data, until the underlying metrics are understood by all. Because the data would remain pointless, it's just data.
So, one these metrics are established, I will (in length) discuss what they mean to the industry, thus all of you. Don't fret, or throw stones, but until bias posts are gone and we talking about statistics, instead of opinions, then we can get somewhere.
Consequently, that is why I posed that very simple question. ( If the game was not free, would they even play it..? Yes/No? )
Because, the individual answer is at the genesis of these BIASED arguments. As that^ single question cannot be denied. Any whom try to deny it, are biased and only wish to skew numbers for their own sake. It really doesn't matter who I am, only that you give me ample time within this community, to share my expertise & knowledge.
To any insider.... knowing who the people are that says "YES" to free games, allows you to target them more specifically and cater to your customers. Knowing who says "YES" to a free games that buy trinkets, allows you to market even more to them and add additional revenues.
Who = Money: (not what)
You have to understand WHO these free players are, before anything else. Are the Business men that make $80k a year, or teenagers who buy things with their allowance..? Who..?
So, knowing who is playing each type of game, allows for the data sets to make sense. Thus, allowing one to follow the revenue streams and garner info from it. This is called knowing your customer, or demographics & consumer behavior, etc..
ie: (to what end does any # mean anything, without knowing what is behind that number..?)
Knowing WHO... is logging onto Grepolis.tv is more important than knowing how many. Because it provides exactness to your marketing. If all age groups join, but only adults are spending money, then you cater to adults, kids no longer matter, etc.. (vice-versa).
Knowing who has a propensity to plays F2P, over who plays Subscription, vs who plays Item Mall, etc.. all matters to the numbers & revenues. Thus the Developers.
124,657... <--- that is just a number, can you tell me what it represents? (if you can't, then there is no point in discussing it)
Originally posted by Retired 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
Old news that some seem to deny.
Even if they question about what is measured, and what is not, there is no denying that F2P brings in lots of money. Look at the number of millions of dollars in the report.
500k (Eve, TOR ...) at $15 a month is $90M. That is quite small compared to the top numbers on the list. And how many wow subs are left in the west (i don't count china, because they don't charge a $15 monthly sub)? 3M? That is $540M a year, and still way below the crossfire number.
Note that WoW is probably the only game left in the world that have more than 1M of subs. In totality, F2P is making much much more money.
The problem is we don't have any real data on that breakdown at all (cash shop vs subscriptions), beyond that top 10 cash shop list of 2013, which itself would be the tip of the iceberg of the market itself. F2P market share includes the subs for Freemium games as well as cash shop in the Superdata data of the past, I have no reason to believe they changed that recently nor any indication on their site.
The current report, in the section discussing P2P game revenue, specifically refers to LotRO, which implies that it is counting at least the subscription portion of that revenue as subscription revenue since LotRO has been Freemium for a long time.
It also mentions micro transactions in the P2P section (accounting for 21% monthly revenue). WoW (as an example) has had a cash shop for quite some time too...
Muddy waters? As I have said before I dislike their delivery of the data for any useful reasoning (beyond acquiring their full reports) as the website is more of a sales pitch for larger companies to use them than for any meaningful arguments on a gaming forum.
Muddy waters indeed.
Great thread if you want to train your skill in spotting fallacies though.
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.
No, the question was not directed at you personally. (Just that you are visible & engaging person)
The rest of your post is non-sequitur and does not relate to any statistics, or data-sets.
And once again, I am unable to provide ADDITIONAL information because I am under contract. Though, that does not restrict me from being kind to this community, & discussing any information You People decide to source up. Problem is, there is no sense in discussing actual data, until the underlying metrics are understood by all. Because the data would remain pointless, it's just data.
So, one these metrics are established, I will (in length) discuss what they mean to the industry, thus all of you. Don't fret, or throw stones, but until bias posts are gone and we talking about statistics, instead of opinions, then we can get somewhere.
Consequently, that is why I posed that very simple question. ( If the game was not free, would they even play it..? Yes/No? )
Because, the individual answer is at the genesis of these BIASED arguments. As that^ single question cannot be denied. Any whom try to deny it, are biased and only wish to skew numbers for their own sake. It really doesn't matter who I am, only that you give me ample time within this community, to share my expertise & knowledge.
To any insider.... knowing who the people are that says "YES" to free games, allows you to target them more specifically and cater to your customers. Knowing who says "YES" to a free games that buy trinkets, allows you to market even more to them and add additional revenues.
Who = Money: (not what)
You have to understand WHO these free players are, before anything else. Are the Business men that make $80k a year, or teenagers who buy things with their allowance..? Who..?
So, knowing who is playing each type of game, allows for the data sets to make sense. Thus, allowing one to follow the revenue streams and garner info from it. This is called knowing your customer, or demographics & consumer behavior, etc..
ie: (to what end does any # mean anything, without knowing what is behind that number..?)
Knowing WHO... is logging onto Grepolis.tv is more important than knowing how many. Because it provides exactness to your marketing. If all age groups join, but only adults are spending money, then you cater to adults, kids no longer matter, etc.. (vice-versa).
Knowing who has a propensity to plays F2P, over who plays Subscription, vs who plays Item Mall, etc.. all matters to the numbers & revenues. Thus the Developers.
124,657... <--- that is just a number, can you tell me what it represents? (if you can't, then there is no point in discussing it)
In the provided infographic, we have a good idea of what the numbers mean. In the realm of Digital Sales, F2P brings in more revenue than P2P. Technically, Microtransactions make more money than Subscriptions, but as I said before, this is a semantic nitpick on my part. For some reason this has spawned a very long running thread. Which I suppose is really the point.
What you're saying is certainly true. Any given game is going to build their monetization system around what will work the best for the people they are likely to pull in. Since the discussion didn't start with individual games and instead focuses on an entire industry, I'm a little fuzzy on why that's important in saying whether or not F2P makes more money than P2P.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The problem is we don't have any real data on that breakdown at all (cash shop vs subscriptions), beyond that top 10 cash shop list of 2013, which itself would be the tip of the iceberg of the market itself. F2P market share includes the subs for Freemium games as well as cash shop in the Superdata data of the past, I have no reason to believe they changed that recently nor any indication on their site.
The current report, in the section discussing P2P game revenue, specifically refers to LotRO, which implies that it is counting at least the subscription portion of that revenue as subscription revenue since LotRO has been Freemium for a long time.
It also mentions micro transactions in the P2P section (accounting for 21% monthly revenue). WoW (as an example) has had a cash shop for quite some time too...
Muddy waters? As I have said before I dislike their delivery of the data for any useful reasoning (beyond acquiring their full reports) as the website is more of a sales pitch for larger companies to use them than for any meaningful arguments on a gaming forum.
Muddy waters indeed.
Great thread if you want to train your skill in spotting fallacies though.
The waters are muddy on purpose. If you look at the other infographics, the information is deliberately setup so that cross referencing all the numbers isn't possible. World revenue is compared to a single country's revenue, different overlapping platforms are compared and games from a variety of genres are compared so a simple table of data won't be possible to derive from what's provided.
The infographics exist as advertising for the information that was used to create them. It's like the canned reports delivered with call center switches or most any IT system that provides canned reports. The information is almost, but not really what is really desired or needed, so additional resources are required to get the information that is really desired. In this case the additional resources are dollars.
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.
Unless you're playing more than 1 game that offers subscriptions. If subscriptions are available that's what I chose, since it's easier to manage subs than wondering if some game token will expire in a year (I hate games that do that crap).
F2P games I regard as "trials", since if they're F2P and don't offer a sub option, and have to survive on cheesy marketing and strict limits, the game wasn't really that good in the first place.
Good games offer a subscription as they can actually provide content that's permanent, not what's on the next "sale".
Idk y this is up for debate it's a fact that f2p makes more money than sub only games anyone who's taken a basic economy course can see why. If u want to believe otherwise it's not even a difference of opinion you're just wrong
The problem is we don't have any real data on that breakdown at all (cash shop vs subscriptions), beyond that top 10 cash shop list of 2013, which itself would be the tip of the iceberg of the market itself. F2P market share includes the subs for Freemium games as well as cash shop in the Superdata data of the past, I have no reason to believe they changed that recently nor any indication on their site.
The current report, in the section discussing P2P game revenue, specifically refers to LotRO, which implies that it is counting at least the subscription portion of that revenue as subscription revenue since LotRO has been Freemium for a long time.
It also mentions micro transactions in the P2P section (accounting for 21% monthly revenue). WoW (as an example) has had a cash shop for quite some time too...
Muddy waters? As I have said before I dislike their delivery of the data for any useful reasoning (beyond acquiring their full reports) as the website is more of a sales pitch for larger companies to use them than for any meaningful arguments on a gaming forum.
Muddy waters indeed.
Great thread if you want to train your skill in spotting fallacies though.
The waters are muddy on purpose. If you look at the other infographics, the information is deliberately setup so that cross referencing all the numbers isn't possible. World revenue is compared to a single country's revenue, different overlapping platforms are compared and games from a variety of genres are compared so a simple table of data won't be possible to derive from what's provided.
The infographics exist as advertising for the information that was used to create them. It's like the canned reports delivered with call center switches or most any IT system that provides canned reports. The information is almost, but not really what is really desired or needed, so additional resources are required to get the information that is really desired. In this case the additional resources are dollars.
Yes, and that's why several of us pointed out repeatedly that the data is insufficient/inapplicable for many of the claims made in this thread, even though those posters tried to use it as proof.
Originally posted by Nephaerius Idk y this is up for debate it's a fact that f2p makes more money than sub only games anyone who's taken a basic economy course can see why. If u want to believe otherwise it's not even a difference of opinion you're just wrong
It's up for debate as there's few absolutes in the universe...and this isn't one of them.
Secondly, watching the English language butchered by IM speech just proves who and what flocks to F2P games. Which is nice in a way, since the older gamers who can afford their way in the world can buy exclusive access to games and wall the trash out. If more did, the freeloaders would be suffering from the game ecology disaster called: whale extinction, too.
There's no such thing as a "free lunch". If someone has to eat rotten corn like a street urchin to play a game, they're doing it wrong anyway.
Originally posted by Nephaerius Idk y this is up for debate it's a fact that f2p makes more money than sub only games anyone who's taken a basic economy course can see why. If u want to believe otherwise it's not even a difference of opinion you're just wrong
Actually what someone with even a shred of economic knowledge would see, is that a comparison of overall revenue numbers doesn't mean much, unless you compare all the other factors that make a market successful too.
So either you include things like how many competitors are in each market, how saturated each segment is, longevity of products in each in comparison, how are the profit margins, potential additional markets & target audiences for each method, etc. or you are just comparing two arbitrary values without being able to pull any meaningful result out of your comparison.
So I guess we have to decide what we want to discuss.
In one case, the data is insufficient.
In the other case.. we can't reach a result that means much. (if anything)
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 don't have statistics to back it up because as you said no one is collecting them. I base the assumption F2P players are playing more than one F2P game at a time on the basis that some on here have said that's what they do. Nari for one. Also its quite logical to assume they do.
I also take your point on the double subbing, I would say though that it Is far more likely that players will play more than one F2P MMO than double sub in a P2P MMO. I am not saying this shows P2P players are in the majority, just that this margin of error means we have to take what these sites say with a pinch salt.
When the data was showing P2P was in ascendance, I used to assume they were correct. But I would never have posted to enforce that view as I simply do not trust the data that much and never have.
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 don't have statistics to back it up because as you said no one is collecting them. I base the assumption F2P players are playing more than one F2P game at a time on the basis that some on here have said that's what they do. Nari for one. Also its quite logical to assume they do.
I also take your point on the double subbing, I would say though that it Is far more likely that players will play more than one F2P MMO than double sub in a P2P MMO. I am not saying this shows P2P players are in the majority, just that this margin of error means we have to take what these sites say with a pinch salt.
When the data was showing P2P was in ascendance, I used to assume they were correct. But I would never have posted to enforce that view as I simply do not trust the data that much and never have.
I wouldn't think generalizing to an entire market based on a few people lead by one extreme case would be an effective way to figure out how a market works. It's certainly possible that one person could be representative of an entire market, but it doesn't seem likely.
See, I could present just as much information about myself and people I know playing a variety of games with a variety of monetization systems, each of who has a different chance of paying money when playing a game with a cash shop. That doesn't mean the people I know are representative of anything. I could know a thousand people and odds are they aren't representative of the market in general if for no other reason than I know them. I would go so far as to say that any generalization based on the people a person knows or sees on a daily basis is most likely to be wrong. The perception applies to the people seen only and can't be extended beyond that.
We do know where the information from the infographic comes from though. It comes from player information provided by developers and publishers. We know how they arrived at their numbers too. They collected a sample, made an effort to make sure the sample was representative of the whole, and then did some simple calculations to get some statistics. We also know a simple interpretation of what they are saying. "In the MMO space, looking at digital sales, F2P* as a category makes more money than other forms of revenue". * F2P here really means microtransactions from a cash shop.
I'm not sure why people find this hard to believe. Most MMOs have a digital download option or are exclusively a digital download option. The games with the largest playerbase are MMOs like LoL, WoT or whatever that Korean shooter that I think I've seen like one time is. Most of the Digital MMO market are playing games that are funded by cash shops. Most MMORPGs, even if they are primarily funded by subscriptions have cash shops. I would say most MMORPGs that start with a sub end up primarily funded by cash shops or they shut down. "F2P", which is really "Microtransactions" are such a big part of every game in the digital space that it would be really weird if they didn't make a lot of money.
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..
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.
No, the question was not directed at you personally. (Just that you are visible & engaging person)
The rest of your post is non-sequitur and does not relate to any statistics, or data-sets.
And once again, I am unable to provide ADDITIONAL information because I am under contract. Though, that does not restrict me from being kind to this community, & discussing any information You People decide to source up. Problem is, there is no sense in discussing actual data, until the underlying metrics are understood by all. Because the data would remain pointless, it's just data.
So, one these metrics are established, I will (in length) discuss what they mean to the industry, thus all of you. Don't fret, or throw stones, but until bias posts are gone and we talking about statistics, instead of opinions, then we can get somewhere.
Consequently, that is why I posed that very simple question. ( If the game was not free, would they even play it..? Yes/No? )
Because, the individual answer is at the genesis of these BIASED arguments. As that^ single question cannot be denied. Any whom try to deny it, are biased and only wish to skew numbers for their own sake. It really doesn't matter who I am, only that you give me ample time within this community, to share my expertise & knowledge.
To any insider.... knowing who the people are that says "YES" to free games, allows you to target them more specifically and cater to your customers. Knowing who says "YES" to a free games that buy trinkets, allows you to market even more to them and add additional revenues.
Who = Money: (not what)
You have to understand WHO these free players are, before anything else. Are the Business men that make $80k a year, or teenagers who buy things with their allowance..? Who..?
So, knowing who is playing each type of game, allows for the data sets to make sense. Thus, allowing one to follow the revenue streams and garner info from it. This is called knowing your customer, or demographics & consumer behavior, etc..
ie: (to what end does any # mean anything, without knowing what is behind that number..?)
Knowing WHO... is logging onto Grepolis.tv is more important than knowing how many. Because it provides exactness to your marketing. If all age groups join, but only adults are spending money, then you cater to adults, kids no longer matter, etc.. (vice-versa).
Knowing who has a propensity to plays F2P, over who plays Subscription, vs who plays Item Mall, etc.. all matters to the numbers & revenues. Thus the Developers.
124,657... <--- that is just a number, can you tell me what it represents? (if you can't, then there is no point in discussing it)
In the provided infographic, we have a good idea of what the numbers mean. In the realm of Digital Sales, F2P brings in more revenue than P2P. Technically, Microtransactions make more money than Subscriptions, but as I said before, this is a semantic nitpick on my part. For some reason this has spawned a very long running thread. Which I suppose is really the point.
What you're saying is certainly true. Any given game is going to build their monetization system around what will work the best for the people they are likely to pull in. Since the discussion didn't start with individual games and instead focuses on an entire industry, I'm a little fuzzy on why that's important in saying whether or not F2P makes more money than P2P.
But it's not actualy a semantic nitpick since microtransactions are not equivalent with F2P. Free 2 play means (to most players who I've heard used the term) that there is no monthly fee to play the game and not entry fee to play the game. That would not include a subscription game which also offered microtransactions and a buy to play game which offered microtransactions. It is also debateable whether that would include "Freemium" games since those games include subscription based play offering offerings which also offer the option of a cash shop on top of the subscription, as well as free to play options with an optional cash shop.
It also EXCLUDES those F2P games (yes they exist even if they are extremely rare) which don't include a cash shop offering but monetize based upon advertisement.
So one can't actualy tell from the data presented, even presuming it is accurate and representitive that F2P makes more money than P2P because it isn't actualy measuring that....it's measuring microtransaction revenue. It's entirely possible that F2P may make more money then P2P, not that it really matters all that much....but this data set doesn't present that metric.
Edit it also does not at all support Nari's conclusion taken from that data.....
"This pretty much shows that to make money, F2P beats P2P, and often you don't even need a virtual world."
Since in order to do that one would have to have meterics on the total number of F2P games in existance with the total revenue generated by those games and compare that figure with the total P2P games in existance and thier total revenue.
Something not presented in the metrics provided. Playing Devils advocate here...by the same arguement Nari makes there one would have to conclude that playing the lotterly was more proffitable then working as a doctor.
If anyone is wondering how he can keep doing this, misrepresenting studies in the wrong forum just to get people going, it's because there are 400+ replies (well, one more now lol). He'll never respond to valid arguments about it, only those relating to the false premise he's created.
I can't blame them or this site for allowing it because both are getting what they want.
We also know a simple interpretation of what they are saying. "In the MMO space, looking at digital sales, F2P* as a category makes more money than other forms of revenue". * F2P here really means microtransactions from a cash shop.
I'm not sure why people find this hard to believe. Most MMOs have a digital download option or are exclusively a digital download option. The games with the largest playerbase are MMOs like LoL, WoT or whatever that Korean shooter that I think I've seen like one time is. Most of the Digital MMO market are playing games that are funded by cash shops. Most MMORPGs, even if they are primarily funded by subscriptions have cash shops. I would say most MMORPGs that start with a sub end up primarily funded by cash shops or they shut down. "F2P", which is really "Microtransactions" are such a big part of every game in the digital space that it would be really weird if they didn't make a lot of money.
I've also seen reports that claim to be presenting the average spend (including both the cost of the sub and any cash shop purchases) per month of subscribers in MMOs, and they claim that depending on the month, cash shop spending of the average subscriber goes anywhere from 66% of what they pay for their sub, to 166% of what they pay for their sub. Can any of us personally verify the accuracy of all these numbers? Of course not, but it seems fairly clear what direction the wind is blowing in, even if we don't know the exact wind speed.
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
But it's not actualy a semantic nitpick since microtransactions are not equivalent with F2P. Free 2 play means (to most players who I've heard used the term) that there is no monthly fee to play the game and not entry fee to play the game. That would not include a subscription game which also offered microtransactions and a buy to play game which offered microtransactions. It is also debateable whether that would include "Freemium" games since those games include subscription based play offering offerings which also offer the option of a cash shop on top of the subscription, as well as free to play options with an optional cash shop.
If you read the fine print under that graphic, it appears clear that it should have been labeled differently. The top ten chart explicitly counts cash shop revenue, even from games that include subscriptions. In at least that part of the report, it is simply about the top ten cash shops. If they use the same definitions in their market segment breakdown further down, that would mean the 1.1 billion is revenue from subscriptions, regardless of what other revenue sources the games in question have, while the so-called "F2P" revenue is all cash shop revenue, even from games with subs.
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.
But it's not actualy a semantic nitpick since microtransactions are not equivalent with F2P. Free 2 play means (to most players who I've heard used the term) that there is no monthly fee to play the game and not entry fee to play the game. That would not include a subscription game which also offered microtransactions and a buy to play game which offered microtransactions. It is also debateable whether that would include "Freemium" games since those games include subscription based play offering offerings which also offer the option of a cash shop on top of the subscription, as well as free to play options with an optional cash shop.
It also EXCLUDES those F2P games (yes they exist even if they are extremely rare) which don't include a cash shop offering but monetize based upon advertisement.
So one can't actualy tell from the data presented, even presuming it is accurate and representitive that F2P makes more money than P2P because it isn't actualy measuring that....it's measuring microtransaction revenue. It's entirely possible that F2P may make more money then P2P, not that it really matters all that much....but this data set doesn't present that metric.
Edit it also does not at all support Nari's conclusion taken from that data.....
"This pretty much shows that to make money, F2P beats P2P, and often you don't even need a virtual world."
Since in order to do that one would have to have meterics on the total number of F2P games in existance with the total revenue generated by those games and compare that figure with the total P2P games in existance and thier total revenue.
Something not presented in the metrics provided. Playing Devils advocate here...by the same arguement Nari makes there one would have to conclude that playing the lotterly was more proffitable then working as a doctor.
This is actually a good point. They've included cash shop revenue from WoW under "F2P", when that's not "F2P". Eve's cash shop revenue might be in there too, when Eve is not a F2P game. I can't think of any other subscription games that would even register at the scales they are using. Dropping WoW's cash shop revenue and assuming $100M revenue from Eve's cash shop still brings their "F2P" category in well over the Sub category, but it's still a problem that within the context of what they are saying, they've got lines blurred. "F2P" revenue should not include WoW. Cash Shop revenue is definitely a big deal while F2P revenue is very likely a big deal, but they've muddied it just enough that buying the data is the only way to see for sure. This is what I was talking about up there with the "canned reports" that come with vendor products.
I don't think the games earning revenue from advertising matter. These are mobile games that have a "Free" version and a "Paid" version and the "Paid" version doesn't have any advertisements. There are a bunch of those, but they are in an odd space, all on their own. Maybe they just don't make enough money to matter.
It's not definitive, but Nari is probably right. Beyond Eve and WoW, I can't think of any other subscription games where the revenue would make a difference, and the people putting the infographic together separated subscription revenues from cash shop revenues in games like SWToR that supply both. Excluding WoW's cash shop revenue and assuming a high value for Eve's cash shop revenue, "F2P" revenue is still much higher than subscription revenues. The only way the Subscription revenue gets close to the "F2P" revenue is if we include WoW's worldwide revenue from subscriptions.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If you read the fine print under that graphic, it appears clear that it should have been labeled differently. The top ten chart explicitly counts cash shop revenue, even from games that include subscriptions. In at least that part of the report, it is simply about the top ten cash shops. If they use the same definitions in their market segment breakdown further down, that would mean the 1.1 billion is revenue from subscriptions, regardless of what other revenue sources the games in question have, while the so-called "F2P" revenue is all cash shop revenue, even from games with subs.
That is what I am guessing too.
So this thread is basically just a case of OP (and some others) misinterpreting the data. (be it on purpose or not)
Actually, in OP's case it's probably more about wanting to stir up some trouble.
In any case, if the discussion just gets a few people to think a bit more about how to use data in discussions (can count me in that group), then it was well worth it.
Originally posted by Aelious If anyone is wondering how he can keep doing this, misrepresenting studies in the wrong forum just to get people going, it's because there are 400+ replies (well, one more now lol). He'll never respond to valid arguments about it, only those relating to the false premise he's created.
I can't blame them or this site for allowing it because both are getting what they want.
I've come to the same realization; aside from being friends with someone high up on the mmorpg.com totem pole, this is the only logical conclusion.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Originally posted by Aelious If anyone is wondering how he can keep doing this, misrepresenting studies in the wrong forum just to get people going, it's because there are 400+ replies (well, one more now lol). He'll never respond to valid arguments about it, only those relating to the false premise he's created.
I can't blame them or this site for allowing it because both are getting what they want.
I've come to the same realization; aside from being friends with someone high up on the mmorpg.com totem pole, this is the only logical conclusion.
It's called: forum seeding.
Throw out the ridiculous and let folks feed on it, so the forum doesn't appear dead. It's how the WoW forums operate and how trolling there became an art.
Why? Because a negative will provoke a reaction more than a positive (except with fanbois/employees as forumites).
When forums are busy it's about controlling the message and moderators are all over. When they're dead it's poking the forum with a stick to get any reaction and moderators are almost non-existent.
Comments
The problem is we don't have any real data on that breakdown at all (cash shop vs subscriptions), beyond that top 10 cash shop list of 2013, which itself would be the tip of the iceberg of the market itself. F2P market share includes the subs for Freemium games as well as cash shop in the Superdata data of the past, I have no reason to believe they changed that recently nor any indication on their site.
link total earnings and then compare them, until then the thread title should be changed, this proves nothing.
F2P restricted games are garbage.
I never said F2P is more successful on a per game basis based on the supplied infographic. If I was going to do that, I'd point to the games that would otherwise be shutting down if not for the F2P transitions they made.
But looking at this point, how does this change F2P generating more revenue than subscriptions? It does. How does more games adopting a F2P monetization system equate to it not being a better system for generating revenue? At what point does more people playing games for free equate to a worse state for consumers? When the average amount of money paid per player drops from $22 to $16*, how is this worse for consumers? There are some very clear economic stats that point to F2P as being better for developers, publishers and players.
At the same time, it's silly for developers and publishers to throw away all the revenue gained by having a subscription and a box sale, even if they aren't going to maintain that system through the lifetime of their game. Not having a subscription or subscription with a cash shop throws away revenue just the same as not eventually going F2P throws away revenue.
So my bias, that you've so expertly brought to the fore is that games should use the monetization system that generates the most revenue. For some games this means starting with a subscription and running with it as long as possible, and for other games this means starting with F2P right out of the gate. As far as F2P generating more revenue, this is inevitable. If games that would otherwise shutdown keep running because of their F2P revenue, the F2P revenue is going to stack up in a way that subscription revenues cannot. F2P isn't "better", it's just inevitable. "F2P is better" way oversimplifies my bias.
An addendum to my bias, in case anyone is wondering, is that I haven't particularly enjoyed any "pure" F2P games. That said, I haven't particularly enjoyed games that started with a sub and then later went F2P either. Most of them I played before the transition and found them to not be a whole lot of fun so the F2P transition didn't really make any difference. I have found that the B2P games I've purchased and then played have been the most enjoyable per dollar spent. I would rank all of the B2P games I've purchased at the top of my list of favorite games. WoW has the most hours played, making it the most expensive, but also one of the most fun. So I suppose I am ignoring my own personal bias to see the economic benefits of F2P as a system for generating revenue and providing economic value to players since I don't particularly like any of the F2P games and one of my favorite games is a subscription game that double dips into cash shop territory.
* This is an increase in dollars spent per player. It used to be $12. The overall number of players has dropped and the number of Subscription and F2P players has dropped as well. They're all just spending more money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The current report, in the section discussing P2P game revenue, specifically refers to LotRO, which implies that it is counting at least the subscription portion of that revenue as subscription revenue since LotRO has been Freemium for a long time.
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.
It also mentions micro transactions in the P2P section (accounting for 21% monthly revenue). WoW (as an example) has had a cash shop for quite some time too...
Muddy waters? As I have said before I dislike their delivery of the data for any useful reasoning (beyond acquiring their full reports) as the website is more of a sales pitch for larger companies to use them than for any meaningful arguments on a gaming forum.
No, the question was not directed at you personally. (Just that you are visible & engaging person)
The rest of your post is non-sequitur and does not relate to any statistics, or data-sets.
And once again, I am unable to provide ADDITIONAL information because I am under contract. Though, that does not restrict me from being kind to this community, & discussing any information You People decide to source up. Problem is, there is no sense in discussing actual data, until the underlying metrics are understood by all. Because the data would remain pointless, it's just data.
So, one these metrics are established, I will (in length) discuss what they mean to the industry, thus all of you. Don't fret, or throw stones, but until bias posts are gone and we talking about statistics, instead of opinions, then we can get somewhere.
Consequently, that is why I posed that very simple question. ( If the game was not free, would they even play it..? Yes/No? )
Because, the individual answer is at the genesis of these BIASED arguments. As that^ single question cannot be denied. Any whom try to deny it, are biased and only wish to skew numbers for their own sake. It really doesn't matter who I am, only that you give me ample time within this community, to share my expertise & knowledge.
To any insider.... knowing who the people are that says "YES" to free games, allows you to target them more specifically and cater to your customers. Knowing who says "YES" to a free games that buy trinkets, allows you to market even more to them and add additional revenues.
Who = Money: (not what)
You have to understand WHO these free players are, before anything else. Are the Business men that make $80k a year, or teenagers who buy things with their allowance..? Who..?
So, knowing who is playing each type of game, allows for the data sets to make sense. Thus, allowing one to follow the revenue streams and garner info from it. This is called knowing your customer, or demographics & consumer behavior, etc..
ie: (to what end does any # mean anything, without knowing what is behind that number..?)
Knowing WHO... is logging onto Grepolis.tv is more important than knowing how many. Because it provides exactness to your marketing. If all age groups join, but only adults are spending money, then you cater to adults, kids no longer matter, etc.. (vice-versa).
Knowing who has a propensity to plays F2P, over who plays Subscription, vs who plays Item Mall, etc.. all matters to the numbers & revenues. Thus the Developers.
124,657... <--- that is just a number, can you tell me what it represents? (if you can't, then there is no point in discussing it)
Old news that some seem to deny.
Even if they question about what is measured, and what is not, there is no denying that F2P brings in lots of money. Look at the number of millions of dollars in the report.
500k (Eve, TOR ...) at $15 a month is $90M. That is quite small compared to the top numbers on the list. And how many wow subs are left in the west (i don't count china, because they don't charge a $15 monthly sub)? 3M? That is $540M a year, and still way below the crossfire number.
Note that WoW is probably the only game left in the world that have more than 1M of subs. In totality, F2P is making much much more money.
Muddy waters indeed.
Great thread if you want to train your skill in spotting fallacies though.
In the provided infographic, we have a good idea of what the numbers mean. In the realm of Digital Sales, F2P brings in more revenue than P2P. Technically, Microtransactions make more money than Subscriptions, but as I said before, this is a semantic nitpick on my part. For some reason this has spawned a very long running thread. Which I suppose is really the point.
What you're saying is certainly true. Any given game is going to build their monetization system around what will work the best for the people they are likely to pull in. Since the discussion didn't start with individual games and instead focuses on an entire industry, I'm a little fuzzy on why that's important in saying whether or not F2P makes more money than P2P.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The waters are muddy on purpose. If you look at the other infographics, the information is deliberately setup so that cross referencing all the numbers isn't possible. World revenue is compared to a single country's revenue, different overlapping platforms are compared and games from a variety of genres are compared so a simple table of data won't be possible to derive from what's provided.The infographics exist as advertising for the information that was used to create them. It's like the canned reports delivered with call center switches or most any IT system that provides canned reports. The information is almost, but not really what is really desired or needed, so additional resources are required to get the information that is really desired. In this case the additional resources are dollars.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Unless you're playing more than 1 game that offers subscriptions. If subscriptions are available that's what I chose, since it's easier to manage subs than wondering if some game token will expire in a year (I hate games that do that crap).
F2P games I regard as "trials", since if they're F2P and don't offer a sub option, and have to survive on cheesy marketing and strict limits, the game wasn't really that good in the first place.
Good games offer a subscription as they can actually provide content that's permanent, not what's on the next "sale".
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Steam: Neph
Selling oil makes more money than selling F2P MMORPGs, so let's shut down all of the F2P MMORPGs.
More seriously, let's just accept that there's a place for both in the world.
Yes, and that's why several of us pointed out repeatedly that the data is insufficient/inapplicable for many of the claims made in this thread, even though those posters tried to use it as proof.
We are in agreement here.
It's up for debate as there's few absolutes in the universe...and this isn't one of them.
Secondly, watching the English language butchered by IM speech just proves who and what flocks to F2P games. Which is nice in a way, since the older gamers who can afford their way in the world can buy exclusive access to games and wall the trash out. If more did, the freeloaders would be suffering from the game ecology disaster called: whale extinction, too.
There's no such thing as a "free lunch". If someone has to eat rotten corn like a street urchin to play a game, they're doing it wrong anyway.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Actually what someone with even a shred of economic knowledge would see, is that a comparison of overall revenue numbers doesn't mean much, unless you compare all the other factors that make a market successful too.
So either you include things like how many competitors are in each market, how saturated each segment is, longevity of products in each in comparison, how are the profit margins, potential additional markets & target audiences for each method, etc. or you are just comparing two arbitrary values without being able to pull any meaningful result out of your comparison.
So I guess we have to decide what we want to discuss.
In one case, the data is insufficient.
In the other case.. we can't reach a result that means much. (if anything)
I don't have statistics to back it up because as you said no one is collecting them. I base the assumption F2P players are playing more than one F2P game at a time on the basis that some on here have said that's what they do. Nari for one. Also its quite logical to assume they do.
I also take your point on the double subbing, I would say though that it Is far more likely that players will play more than one F2P MMO than double sub in a P2P MMO. I am not saying this shows P2P players are in the majority, just that this margin of error means we have to take what these sites say with a pinch salt.
When the data was showing P2P was in ascendance, I used to assume they were correct. But I would never have posted to enforce that view as I simply do not trust the data that much and never have.
I wouldn't think generalizing to an entire market based on a few people lead by one extreme case would be an effective way to figure out how a market works. It's certainly possible that one person could be representative of an entire market, but it doesn't seem likely.
See, I could present just as much information about myself and people I know playing a variety of games with a variety of monetization systems, each of who has a different chance of paying money when playing a game with a cash shop. That doesn't mean the people I know are representative of anything. I could know a thousand people and odds are they aren't representative of the market in general if for no other reason than I know them. I would go so far as to say that any generalization based on the people a person knows or sees on a daily basis is most likely to be wrong. The perception applies to the people seen only and can't be extended beyond that.
We do know where the information from the infographic comes from though. It comes from player information provided by developers and publishers. We know how they arrived at their numbers too. They collected a sample, made an effort to make sure the sample was representative of the whole, and then did some simple calculations to get some statistics. We also know a simple interpretation of what they are saying. "In the MMO space, looking at digital sales, F2P* as a category makes more money than other forms of revenue". * F2P here really means microtransactions from a cash shop.
I'm not sure why people find this hard to believe. Most MMOs have a digital download option or are exclusively a digital download option. The games with the largest playerbase are MMOs like LoL, WoT or whatever that Korean shooter that I think I've seen like one time is. Most of the Digital MMO market are playing games that are funded by cash shops. Most MMORPGs, even if they are primarily funded by subscriptions have cash shops. I would say most MMORPGs that start with a sub end up primarily funded by cash shops or they shut down. "F2P", which is really "Microtransactions" are such a big part of every game in the digital space that it would be really weird if they didn't make a lot of money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
But it's not actualy a semantic nitpick since microtransactions are not equivalent with F2P. Free 2 play means (to most players who I've heard used the term) that there is no monthly fee to play the game and not entry fee to play the game. That would not include a subscription game which also offered microtransactions and a buy to play game which offered microtransactions. It is also debateable whether that would include "Freemium" games since those games include subscription based play offering offerings which also offer the option of a cash shop on top of the subscription, as well as free to play options with an optional cash shop.
It also EXCLUDES those F2P games (yes they exist even if they are extremely rare) which don't include a cash shop offering but monetize based upon advertisement.
So one can't actualy tell from the data presented, even presuming it is accurate and representitive that F2P makes more money than P2P because it isn't actualy measuring that....it's measuring microtransaction revenue. It's entirely possible that F2P may make more money then P2P, not that it really matters all that much....but this data set doesn't present that metric.
Edit it also does not at all support Nari's conclusion taken from that data.....
"This pretty much shows that to make money, F2P beats P2P, and often you don't even need a virtual world."
Since in order to do that one would have to have meterics on the total number of F2P games in existance with the total revenue generated by those games and compare that figure with the total P2P games in existance and thier total revenue.
Something not presented in the metrics provided. Playing Devils advocate here...by the same arguement Nari makes there one would have to conclude that playing the lotterly was more proffitable then working as a doctor.
I can't blame them or this site for allowing it because both are getting what they want.
I've also seen reports that claim to be presenting the average spend (including both the cost of the sub and any cash shop purchases) per month of subscribers in MMOs, and they claim that depending on the month, cash shop spending of the average subscriber goes anywhere from 66% of what they pay for their sub, to 166% of what they pay for their sub. Can any of us personally verify the accuracy of all these numbers? Of course not, but it seems fairly clear what direction the wind is blowing in, even if we don't know the exact wind speed.
If you read the fine print under that graphic, it appears clear that it should have been labeled differently. The top ten chart explicitly counts cash shop revenue, even from games that include subscriptions. In at least that part of the report, it is simply about the top ten cash shops. If they use the same definitions in their market segment breakdown further down, that would mean the 1.1 billion is revenue from subscriptions, regardless of what other revenue sources the games in question have, while the so-called "F2P" revenue is all cash shop revenue, even from games with subs.
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 actually a good point. They've included cash shop revenue from WoW under "F2P", when that's not "F2P". Eve's cash shop revenue might be in there too, when Eve is not a F2P game. I can't think of any other subscription games that would even register at the scales they are using. Dropping WoW's cash shop revenue and assuming $100M revenue from Eve's cash shop still brings their "F2P" category in well over the Sub category, but it's still a problem that within the context of what they are saying, they've got lines blurred. "F2P" revenue should not include WoW. Cash Shop revenue is definitely a big deal while F2P revenue is very likely a big deal, but they've muddied it just enough that buying the data is the only way to see for sure. This is what I was talking about up there with the "canned reports" that come with vendor products.
I don't think the games earning revenue from advertising matter. These are mobile games that have a "Free" version and a "Paid" version and the "Paid" version doesn't have any advertisements. There are a bunch of those, but they are in an odd space, all on their own. Maybe they just don't make enough money to matter.
It's not definitive, but Nari is probably right. Beyond Eve and WoW, I can't think of any other subscription games where the revenue would make a difference, and the people putting the infographic together separated subscription revenues from cash shop revenues in games like SWToR that supply both. Excluding WoW's cash shop revenue and assuming a high value for Eve's cash shop revenue, "F2P" revenue is still much higher than subscription revenues. The only way the Subscription revenue gets close to the "F2P" revenue is if we include WoW's worldwide revenue from subscriptions.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
That is what I am guessing too.
So this thread is basically just a case of OP (and some others) misinterpreting the data. (be it on purpose or not)
Actually, in OP's case it's probably more about wanting to stir up some trouble.
In any case, if the discussion just gets a few people to think a bit more about how to use data in discussions (can count me in that group), then it was well worth it.
I've come to the same realization; aside from being friends with someone high up on the mmorpg.com totem pole, this is the only logical conclusion.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
It's called: forum seeding.
Throw out the ridiculous and let folks feed on it, so the forum doesn't appear dead. It's how the WoW forums operate and how trolling there became an art.
Why? Because a negative will provoke a reaction more than a positive (except with fanbois/employees as forumites).
When forums are busy it's about controlling the message and moderators are all over. When they're dead it's poking the forum with a stick to get any reaction and moderators are almost non-existent.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.