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
Because some people love to stick their head in the sand when facts don't go their way?
Look at how they want to dismiss real data with things like we "misinterpret". Note that they never offer any data to counter any claim, and they complain how people are paying attention to, and discussing data.
Well, you can pretty much just ignore them. I will post facts when i see fit. And given the popularity of this thread, and all the discussions, i would say i may do that more often in the future. Thank you for everyone who posted, including those who hold a different opinion.
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.
The issue of what is being counted as a F2P game was brought up the last time Nari started a thread using one of these sites. It is quite understandable to me why the site does not say which companies gave them data, that is possibly a condition of being given the data. But it just raises more questions about the validity of conclusions.
Rift, Terra, Lotro, there is not a P2P out there that is not using micro transactions. I can't see how you can say its only EvE and WoW. The others may be small fry in comparison, but added together they would be significant.
I have no difficulty in believing that F2P micro transactions on their own could be making more than P2P, but the data just has too many holes for me to be sure. It just too hard a call.
Not that often Nari, give us a break. You like Diablo do a couple about that so we can have a breather.:D
Not that often Nari, give us a break. You like Diablo do a couple about that so we can have a breather.:D
nah .. i am on hiatus playing D3. Remember i say nothing last forever .. not even my fav game. I am waiting for RoS .. that probably will take a bit of my time.
Plus, this forum is really an ideal place to kill a few minutes when i am waiting for my analysis to run.
If you have a problem with the data, air them. In fact, you have been doing that. I am under no obligation to stop posting facts and data just because someone disagrees with them.
Notice that i am not asking you to stop posting opposite opinion. Don't you think you don't have the right to shut others up just because they have a different opinion ... and worse yet .. because they post facts/data you don't like?
The issue of what is being counted as a F2P game was brought up the last time Nari started a thread using one of these sites. It is quite understandable to me why the site does not say which companies gave them data, that is possibly a condition of being given the data. But it just raises more questions about the validity of conclusions.
Precisely.
Not all companies are publicly traded, either. The companies that are (like Blizzard) have to provide accurate financials to the public as they're a publicly traded stock company. There's no NDAs with that info, anyone anywhere can eyeball it.
Private corporations (like CCP) can hide any or all financials from the public, and any idea of the true operational budget and active accounts is subjective reporting at best. Because a company like CCP doesn't have to report or explain anything to the public, they could selectively state "500k" play EvE, and claim they're the fastest growing MMO. But the consumer won't have the actual financials to prove those claims -- you'll have to "trust" the company's word (good luck!).
Consumers can trust Blizzard's financials as the penalty for lying is federal prison time. We don't have that security with other data from private companies, nor can trust them because there's nothing stopping private companies hyping their numbers without public facts to back them up.
It's buyer beware except with publicly traded companies.
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.
The issue of what is being counted as a F2P game was brought up the last time Nari started a thread using one of these sites. It is quite understandable to me why the site does not say which companies gave them data, that is possibly a condition of being given the data. But it just raises more questions about the validity of conclusions.
Rift, Terra, Lotro, there is not a P2P out there that is not using micro transactions. I can't see how you can say its only EvE and WoW. The others may be small fry in comparison, but added together they would be significant.
I have no difficulty in believing that F2P micro transactions on their own could be making more than P2P, but the data just has too many holes for me to be sure. It just too hard a call.
Not that often Nari, give us a break. You like Diablo do a couple about that so we can have a breather.:D
I'm not saying it's only WoW, I'm saying WoW's worldwide subscriptions are the only thing that can close the gap on the revenue generated in just the U.S. by microtransactions and even there we have to take some of WoW's microtransactions out of the F2P category. Limiting WoW's subscription numbers to only those people in the U.S. and the gap is impossible to breach. Rift, Terra and LotRO do not collectively have three to five million subscribers.
I think Nari is probably right. I think the information presented is deliberately missing details too. *shrug* It has certainly spawned a lot of posts. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think Nari is probably right. I think the information presented is deliberately missing details too. *shrug* It has certainly spawned a lot of posts. :-)
Any threads like these do. All he had to do was put Accounts+WoW in the title to generate forum interest.
Just look at MMO-Champion after a stock release report. Pure feeding frenzy! lol
So help me understand this whole F2p vs P2p argument.
What is the goal of winning this argument?
I wanted to post this in a new string but I've seen so many of these lately that I figured here was as good as anywhere else.
Different arguers, different goals. My goal would be for people to stop blathering nonsense about it being necessary for a game to be subscription only to be "quality." Getting people to admit that including a cash shop is becoming basic common sense given current market trends is a good step in that direction.
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.
So help me understand this whole F2p vs P2p argument.
What is the goal of winning this argument?
I wanted to post this in a new string but I've seen so many of these lately that I figured here was as good as anywhere else.
Different arguers, different goals. My goal would be for people to stop blathering nonsense about it being necessary for a game to be subscription only to be "quality." Getting people to admit that including a cash shop is becoming basic common sense given current market trends is a good step in that direction.
Why? so that developers can divert 20%, 30% or 40% of their resources to developing cosmetic cash shop items instead of content? If the cash shop is a mainstay of your design, like SWTOR and GW2, then you have to put as much time into that because that's your primary source of income.
I'm sorry, I prefer a subscription model where I know the developer doesn't care what goes into a nonexistent cash shop, they're too busy coming up with nice content that everyone has EQUAL access to.
I don't mind Cash Shop where you can pay for name change, server transfer, faction change, etc etc. But armor design packs, xp boost packs, skins, content packs etc etc is just bad. As soon as a game charges me for an action bar is the day I decide to never play that game.
So help me understand this whole F2p vs P2p argument.
What is the goal of winning this argument?
I wanted to post this in a new string but I've seen so many of these lately that I figured here was as good as anywhere else.
Different arguers, different goals. My goal would be for people to stop blathering nonsense about it being necessary for a game to be subscription only to be "quality." Getting people to admit that including a cash shop is becoming basic common sense given current market trends is a good step in that direction.
And how, if you don't mind me asking, would you gain from getting people to stop blathering this so-called "nonsense"?
Just trying to see why it is important to you personally.
So help me understand this whole F2p vs P2p argument.
What is the goal of winning this argument?
I wanted to post this in a new string but I've seen so many of these lately that I figured here was as good as anywhere else.
Different arguers, different goals. My goal would be for people to stop blathering nonsense about it being necessary for a game to be subscription only to be "quality." Getting people to admit that including a cash shop is becoming basic common sense given current market trends is a good step in that direction.
Why? so that developers can divert 20%, 30% or 40% of their resources to developing cosmetic cash shop items instead of content? If the cash shop is a mainstay of your design, like SWTOR and GW2, then you have to put as much time into that because that's your primary source of income.
I'm sorry, I prefer a subscription model where I know the developer doesn't care what goes into a nonexistent cash shop, they're too busy coming up with nice content that everyone has EQUAL access to.
I don't mind Cash Shop where you can pay for name change, server transfer, faction change, etc etc. But armor design packs, xp boost packs, skins, content packs etc etc is just bad. As soon as a game charges me for an action bar is the day I decide to never play that game.
Ok, so I am digging into that guys theories. So in the sense of fair play, I am going to ask you a question also.
Is it really fair to assume that developers are going to put that much of their time into only the cash shop when the quality of the game, if it is indeed an MMORPG and not something more like Checkers ala LOL, is what is going to keep people wanting to play?
And also, if their cash shop is doing well, doesn't that promote even more game development because they now have the funding to do that?
Again, putting these out there as I try to think about it from both sides. (already biased that the F2p model lets in too much riff raff to be honest, but that being my only real complaint).
Indeed, when the next round of games comes out, how many of the cash-shop titles we see now are going to remain open? LotR? The Funcom games? DDO? And how many of those hardcore "whales" who get closed on are going to dump /yet more/ cash on something that might only remain open half as long? Or perhaps close in 88 days, like APB?
Good question. Just look at the list on MMORPG.com.
Quoting just a few and ignoring hundreds won't make the market magically smaller.
And so what if some of the games are closing. There are new ones to play. Plus, the point is that the market is expanding. Are you denying this fact?
May I ask, why you have been so frightened to acknowledge, or even respond to any of my posts. At first, I thought you may have overlooked them, but now I can see a clear & decisive pattern here.
You are simply misguided.. and/or have a massive agenda to keep spewing the things you do.
You suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect. You have not displayed any skill at understand data, data-points, data-sets, or even simply extrapolations of these business models.
You offer OPINIONS, then fall back to your own playstyle when cornered.
Simply put, you have zero substance to offer anyone here and are not fooling anyone. I can easily crush your opinion with facts, but you seem to know this, and that is why you are being coy.
To start a thread, then troll everyone in it, illustrates how little you respect this community.
A lot of us have noticed this over time about the guy..
Your data does not show Subscription money made in this "F2P makes waaaaay moar money!" post of yours. Where is THAT chart? You're the one who keeps posting "facts" and data, I figured you'd have that already...
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?
There was a time not so long ago when MMORPG lovers would come here and to many a website to discuss where this genre would take us and dish on secrets of upcoming games that we were excited for, even talk amongst ourselves about what ideas could be put into these game, slowly over time it became less about what makes a good solid game, it turned into charts, graphs, population numbers and revenue stream as a factor now if a game is good in their opinion which is a pretty poor way to gauge the quality of a game. But hey what do I know.. Im just a gamer that likes to talk about games , not business models. Im not ragging on you at all btw, I just agree with your sentiments.
So help me understand this whole F2p vs P2p argument.
What is the goal of winning this argument?
I wanted to post this in a new string but I've seen so many of these lately that I figured here was as good as anywhere else.
There's no real goal. It's more for forum activity, as no subject gets every pro/con forumite out more discussing these types of subjects than these. There's various topic formulas, but by now everyone has perfected their arguments on these topics.
Same formula seen at MMO-Champ; Gamebreaker and even Danger Dolan. Just put a negative in the title box (it's like dynamite), and watch the feeding frenzy begin! lol
So help me understand this whole F2p vs P2p argument.
What is the goal of winning this argument?
I wanted to post this in a new string but I've seen so many of these lately that I figured here was as good as anywhere else.
That's a good point. Even if F2P micro transactions in those games alone was making more money than P2P plus its micro transactions what does it prove? That F2P are better games than P2P? Come on, we know if you have more investment you tend to get better quality. The fact you can produce a MMO on the cheap and rake in the cash does not change that. Time after time the "F2P" MMOs that are quoted on here as being good were originally P2P or B2P, what does that tell you?
The fact that we only had two P2P/B2P releases last year, what does that tell you? How many ex P2P/B2P MMOs which are now F2P do you think you will be playing in three years time?
The essential argument about P2P being better quality to MMOs does not go away.
Some F2P MMOs have very fair cash shops, like PoE. I know there are hardly any, but they do exist. This shows a potential way forward for F2P which does not involve become a MMO version of an online casino. It can be done, but will it be done?
This is part of the background to your question from a Pro P2P guy, I am sure others will give you the F2P angle.
Why? so that developers can divert 20%, 30% or 40% of their resources to developing cosmetic cash shop items instead of content? If the cash shop is a mainstay of your design, like SWTOR and GW2, then you have to put as much time into that because that's your primary source of income.
I'm sorry, I prefer a subscription model where I know the developer doesn't care what goes into a nonexistent cash shop, they're too busy coming up with nice content that everyone has EQUAL access to.
I don't mind Cash Shop where you can pay for name change, server transfer, faction change, etc etc. But armor design packs, xp boost packs, skins, content packs etc etc is just bad. As soon as a game charges me for an action bar is the day I decide to never play that game.
You have to remember that these are businesses. In an increasingly competitive market, they can't afford to have emotional attachments to old fashioned notions like "equal access." They need revenue models that allow anyone who wants to give them money to do so, in whatever quantity they are willing to give. The subscription only model is inherently inefficient in extracting money from customers, the built in ceiling leaves tons of money on the table (often to be picked up by gold farmers) and the built in floor leaves lots of players out in the cold.
Originally posted by jesad
And how, if you don't mind me asking, would you gain from getting people to stop blathering this so-called "nonsense"?
Just trying to see why it is important to you personally.
Arguments that are inconsistent with reality give me a headache. That is the crux of it.
There are plenty of quality games that have cash shops. There is nothing inherent in the practice of charging for extras that mandates that a game's content automatically turns to crap, and it is not necessary for the content to have been crap to begin with in order for a company to decide to add a cash shop. There is a connection between quality and development budget, which means that small budget games which were designed to rely solely on cash shop revenue are often not that great. But there is not a connection between quality and revenue model, there is no reason a game which offers both subscription and a cash shop necessarily has to be lacking in quality.
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.
Arguments that are inconsistent with reality give me a headache. That is the crux of it.
There are plenty of quality games that have cash shops. There is nothing inherent in the practice of charging for extras that mandates that a game's content automatically turns to crap, and it is not necessary for the content to have been crap to begin with in order for a company to decide to add a cash shop. There is a connection between quality and development budget, which means that small budget games which were designed to rely solely on cash shop revenue are often not that great. But there is not a connection between quality and revenue model, there is no reason a game which offers both subscription and a cash shop necessarily has to be lacking in quality.
I don't know what your definition of quality is, but a game that is 1-2 years-old isn't quality -- either in having content nor bug fixes.
If a title is F2P in 2 years they don't have either of those going for them.
This is why gamers keep claiming sub games have more quality, because they had years to bug fix and expansions to fill the world with content.
It takes years of fixes and content to claim a new game is truly quality.
Anyway the problem with the thinking in this thread is you need to compare return on investment - not just revenues. Sure the F2P games my rake in more revenue but the huge profit margins of WoW alone make it an inferior business model. F2P is often a way to alleviate sunk costs not a way to make actual huge profits.
Your data does not show Subscription money made in this "F2P makes waaaaay moar money!" post of yours. Where is THAT chart? You're the one who keeps posting "facts" and data, I figured you'd have that already...
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?
There was a time not so long ago when MMORPG lovers would come here and to many a website to discuss where this genre would take us and dish on secrets of upcoming games that we were excited for, even talk amongst ourselves about what ideas could be put into these game, slowly over time it became less about what makes a good solid game, it turned into charts, graphs, population numbers and revenue stream as a factor now if a game is good in their opinion which is a pretty poor way to gauge the quality of a game. But hey what do I know.. Im just a gamer that likes to talk about games , not business models. Im not ragging on you at all btw, I just agree with your sentiments.
Was this wonderful era sometime prior to 2008 when I got here? Because what I remember are pointless arguments about sandbox versus themepark, casual versus hardcore, how WoW ruined the genre, how PC gaming was dead and other pointless arguments.
If we're going to get all overly dramatic, at least put some effort into it.
Sometime in 2009, the guys over at Turbine decided to take their game DDO Free2Play. This caused a great deal of controversy, resulting in a lot of the existing paying players to leave. Working at Turbine, we see Guy At Desk, quietly toiling away on an update for DDO. THUMP! "What's this?", he says. On his desk is a large, heavy looking sack. Looking over the sack is a trollish looking fellow, we'll call The Sack Man. "That's money", says The Sack Man.
"Money?"
"Yes, money. Do something with it. It's starting to clog up the lower levels."
"What? What am I supposed to do with it? Now it's blocking my monitor!"
"Dunno, man. Just do something with it. Everyone has to take some. It's a group effort."
That evening, Guy At Desk makes his way home, lugging what is now his sack of money. He's not sure what to do with it. He's never seen so much of it, and he has all the ramen he'll ever need.
On the sidewalk, jingling a cup is a little fellow we'll call MMORPG.COM. "What's that?", asks MMORPG.COM. "It's a sack of money", says Guy At Desk. "Apparently we're making it now and The Sack Man said I have to take this home." MMORPG.COM asks Guy At Desk if he can interview him, gather some information for an article he'd like to write. Guy At Desk is a nice enough fellow, and he enjoys arguing with MMORPG.COM about the directions the industry is going in, so they both go out for coffee.
Somewhere, Narisseldon's red eyes open, their heat steaming the sidewalk under which they rest. He doesn't know what has just happened. He only knows that their world will burn. Oh yes, their world will burn.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
"There was a time not so long ago when MMORPG lovers would come here and to many a website to discuss where this genre would take us and dish on secrets of upcoming games that we were excited for, even talk amongst ourselves about what ideas could be put into these game, slowly over time it became less about what makes a good solid game, it turned into charts, graphs, population numbers and revenue stream as a factor now if a game is good in their opinion which is a pretty poor way to gauge the quality of a game."
This did happen, MMO players now talk about financial models and monetary success of the games far more than they once did. If that monetary success was always being ploughed back into the game then profit would be more relevant, but more often than not it is put into the next sub par MMO.
There is a feeling of being cheated out of your dreams for the future of the genre. Now some may say 'get a life' but 'get a life' can be applied to the whole of gaming. Or they say 'find another game you like', but there is nothing out there as good as the way MMOs were headed. We saw the genre making bigger, bolder and more varied MMOs with richer communities; then we saw it make smaller, one template, soloplayer MMO's.
Its hardly surprising that many of us look at these figures and say 'so what'?
I will leave the drama production to Lizardbones, even I don't think content locusts like Nari are some sort of devil.
"There was a time not so long ago when MMORPG lovers would come here and to many a website to discuss where this genre would take us and dish on secrets of upcoming games that we were excited for, even talk amongst ourselves about what ideas could be put into these game, slowly over time it became less about what makes a good solid game, it turned into charts, graphs, population numbers and revenue stream as a factor now if a game is good in their opinion which is a pretty poor way to gauge the quality of a game."
This did happen, MMO players now talk about financial models and monetary success of the games far more than they once did. If that monetary success was always being ploughed back into the game then profit would be more relevant, but more often than not it is put into the next sub par MMO.
There is a feeling of being cheated out of your dreams for the future of the genre. Now some may say 'get a life' but 'get a life' can be applied to the whole of gaming. Or they say 'find another game you like', but there is nothing out there as good as the way MMOs were headed. We saw the genre making bigger, bolder and more varied MMOs with richer communities; then we saw it make smaller, one template, soloplayer MMO's.
Its hardly surprising that many of us look at these figures and say 'so what'?
I will leave the drama production to Lizardbones.
This is the second or third thread that got posted in the MMORPG Discussion Forum.
Have either recently given up on a game you have played for a long time or have been let down by one of the more recent POS games that have been released, AC2 SWG, and are now just wating and hoping that one of the near future games wont be one big pile of horse dung to throw in with the rest of your 4 year old games.
I may try to turn the drama into literature, but it's been here since the beginning. Since before WoW released even. People are just incorporating current events into their posts. Face it. We're all Drama Llamas in one way or another and these forums aren't immune to that particular disease and never have been.
**
I recommend that everyone go to the Pub forum(s) and go to the oldest pages and then start working your way backwards through time. It is interesting, enlightening and with the knowledge that living in the future gives you, pretty humorous.
* Forward through time. Technically you're starting at the farthest point back in history and working your way forward.
**
PvP: A Dead Horse Beaten To Dust - It doesn't end. This is from 2004 folks and this guy was already calling the PvP discussions a dead horse. In 2018 we'll be arguing about monetization systems still.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
Because some people love to stick their head in the sand when facts don't go their way?
Look at how they want to dismiss real data with things like we "misinterpret". Note that they never offer any data to counter any claim, and they complain how people are paying attention to, and discussing data.
Well, you can pretty much just ignore them. I will post facts when i see fit. And given the popularity of this thread, and all the discussions, i would say i may do that more often in the future. Thank you for everyone who posted, including those who hold a different opinion.
The issue of what is being counted as a F2P game was brought up the last time Nari started a thread using one of these sites. It is quite understandable to me why the site does not say which companies gave them data, that is possibly a condition of being given the data. But it just raises more questions about the validity of conclusions.
Rift, Terra, Lotro, there is not a P2P out there that is not using micro transactions. I can't see how you can say its only EvE and WoW. The others may be small fry in comparison, but added together they would be significant.
I have no difficulty in believing that F2P micro transactions on their own could be making more than P2P, but the data just has too many holes for me to be sure. It just too hard a call.
Not that often Nari, give us a break. You like Diablo do a couple about that so we can have a breather.:D
nah .. i am on hiatus playing D3. Remember i say nothing last forever .. not even my fav game. I am waiting for RoS .. that probably will take a bit of my time.
Plus, this forum is really an ideal place to kill a few minutes when i am waiting for my analysis to run.
If you have a problem with the data, air them. In fact, you have been doing that. I am under no obligation to stop posting facts and data just because someone disagrees with them.
Notice that i am not asking you to stop posting opposite opinion. Don't you think you don't have the right to shut others up just because they have a different opinion ... and worse yet .. because they post facts/data you don't like?
Those of us who had the dream of a Sandbox simulated world can kiss that dream goodby.
It's over.
Once upon a time....
Precisely.
Not all companies are publicly traded, either. The companies that are (like Blizzard) have to provide accurate financials to the public as they're a publicly traded stock company. There's no NDAs with that info, anyone anywhere can eyeball it.
Private corporations (like CCP) can hide any or all financials from the public, and any idea of the true operational budget and active accounts is subjective reporting at best. Because a company like CCP doesn't have to report or explain anything to the public, they could selectively state "500k" play EvE, and claim they're the fastest growing MMO. But the consumer won't have the actual financials to prove those claims -- you'll have to "trust" the company's word (good luck!).
Consumers can trust Blizzard's financials as the penalty for lying is federal prison time. We don't have that security with other data from private companies, nor can trust them because there's nothing stopping private companies hyping their numbers without public facts to back them up.
It's buyer beware except with publicly traded companies.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
I'm not saying it's only WoW, I'm saying WoW's worldwide subscriptions are the only thing that can close the gap on the revenue generated in just the U.S. by microtransactions and even there we have to take some of WoW's microtransactions out of the F2P category. Limiting WoW's subscription numbers to only those people in the U.S. and the gap is impossible to breach. Rift, Terra and LotRO do not collectively have three to five million subscribers.
I think Nari is probably right. I think the information presented is deliberately missing details too. *shrug* It has certainly spawned a lot of posts. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Any threads like these do. All he had to do was put Accounts+WoW in the title to generate forum interest.
Just look at MMO-Champion after a stock release report. Pure feeding frenzy! lol
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
So help me understand this whole F2p vs P2p argument.
What is the goal of winning this argument?
I wanted to post this in a new string but I've seen so many of these lately that I figured here was as good as anywhere else.
Different arguers, different goals. My goal would be for people to stop blathering nonsense about it being necessary for a game to be subscription only to be "quality." Getting people to admit that including a cash shop is becoming basic common sense given current market trends is a good step in that direction.
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.
Why? so that developers can divert 20%, 30% or 40% of their resources to developing cosmetic cash shop items instead of content? If the cash shop is a mainstay of your design, like SWTOR and GW2, then you have to put as much time into that because that's your primary source of income.
I'm sorry, I prefer a subscription model where I know the developer doesn't care what goes into a nonexistent cash shop, they're too busy coming up with nice content that everyone has EQUAL access to.
I don't mind Cash Shop where you can pay for name change, server transfer, faction change, etc etc. But armor design packs, xp boost packs, skins, content packs etc etc is just bad. As soon as a game charges me for an action bar is the day I decide to never play that game.
And how, if you don't mind me asking, would you gain from getting people to stop blathering this so-called "nonsense"?
Just trying to see why it is important to you personally.
Ok, so I am digging into that guys theories. So in the sense of fair play, I am going to ask you a question also.
Is it really fair to assume that developers are going to put that much of their time into only the cash shop when the quality of the game, if it is indeed an MMORPG and not something more like Checkers ala LOL, is what is going to keep people wanting to play?
And also, if their cash shop is doing well, doesn't that promote even more game development because they now have the funding to do that?
Again, putting these out there as I try to think about it from both sides. (already biased that the F2p model lets in too much riff raff to be honest, but that being my only real complaint).
You can make a good sub based game, you can make a crap sub based game.
You can make a good F2P game, you can make a crap F2P game.
One thing to keep in mind though is "who is the target audience".
Because that will arguably be different for each monetization method. Thus 1to1 comparisons don't really work well.
A lot of us have noticed this over time about the guy..
There was a time not so long ago when MMORPG lovers would come here and to many a website to discuss where this genre would take us and dish on secrets of upcoming games that we were excited for, even talk amongst ourselves about what ideas could be put into these game, slowly over time it became less about what makes a good solid game, it turned into charts, graphs, population numbers and revenue stream as a factor now if a game is good in their opinion which is a pretty poor way to gauge the quality of a game. But hey what do I know.. Im just a gamer that likes to talk about games , not business models. Im not ragging on you at all btw, I just agree with your sentiments.
There's no real goal. It's more for forum activity, as no subject gets every pro/con forumite out more discussing these types of subjects than these. There's various topic formulas, but by now everyone has perfected their arguments on these topics.
Same formula seen at MMO-Champ; Gamebreaker and even Danger Dolan. Just put a negative in the title box (it's like dynamite), and watch the feeding frenzy begin! lol
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
That's a good point. Even if F2P micro transactions in those games alone was making more money than P2P plus its micro transactions what does it prove? That F2P are better games than P2P? Come on, we know if you have more investment you tend to get better quality. The fact you can produce a MMO on the cheap and rake in the cash does not change that. Time after time the "F2P" MMOs that are quoted on here as being good were originally P2P or B2P, what does that tell you?
The fact that we only had two P2P/B2P releases last year, what does that tell you? How many ex P2P/B2P MMOs which are now F2P do you think you will be playing in three years time?
The essential argument about P2P being better quality to MMOs does not go away.
Some F2P MMOs have very fair cash shops, like PoE. I know there are hardly any, but they do exist. This shows a potential way forward for F2P which does not involve become a MMO version of an online casino. It can be done, but will it be done?
This is part of the background to your question from a Pro P2P guy, I am sure others will give you the F2P angle.
Arguments that are inconsistent with reality give me a headache. That is the crux of it.
There are plenty of quality games that have cash shops. There is nothing inherent in the practice of charging for extras that mandates that a game's content automatically turns to crap, and it is not necessary for the content to have been crap to begin with in order for a company to decide to add a cash shop. There is a connection between quality and development budget, which means that small budget games which were designed to rely solely on cash shop revenue are often not that great. But there is not a connection between quality and revenue model, there is no reason a game which offers both subscription and a cash shop necessarily has to be lacking in quality.
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.
I don't know what your definition of quality is, but a game that is 1-2 years-old isn't quality -- either in having content nor bug fixes.
If a title is F2P in 2 years they don't have either of those going for them.
This is why gamers keep claiming sub games have more quality, because they had years to bug fix and expansions to fill the world with content.
It takes years of fixes and content to claim a new game is truly quality.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Kinda sad, isn't it, how many people are willing to or preferring to pay to win rather than play to win.
F2P is the worst thing to happen to MMORPGs recently - with the shift to solo and casual being the previous worst thing.
MMORPGs these days barely qualify as MMORPGs any more and shame the genre.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
Anyway the problem with the thinking in this thread is you need to compare return on investment - not just revenues. Sure the F2P games my rake in more revenue but the huge profit margins of WoW alone make it an inferior business model. F2P is often a way to alleviate sunk costs not a way to make actual huge profits.
Was this wonderful era sometime prior to 2008 when I got here? Because what I remember are pointless arguments about sandbox versus themepark, casual versus hardcore, how WoW ruined the genre, how PC gaming was dead and other pointless arguments.
If we're going to get all overly dramatic, at least put some effort into it.
Sometime in 2009, the guys over at Turbine decided to take their game DDO Free2Play. This caused a great deal of controversy, resulting in a lot of the existing paying players to leave. Working at Turbine, we see Guy At Desk, quietly toiling away on an update for DDO. THUMP! "What's this?", he says. On his desk is a large, heavy looking sack. Looking over the sack is a trollish looking fellow, we'll call The Sack Man. "That's money", says The Sack Man.
"Money?"
"Yes, money. Do something with it. It's starting to clog up the lower levels."
"What? What am I supposed to do with it? Now it's blocking my monitor!"
"Dunno, man. Just do something with it. Everyone has to take some. It's a group effort."
That evening, Guy At Desk makes his way home, lugging what is now his sack of money. He's not sure what to do with it. He's never seen so much of it, and he has all the ramen he'll ever need.
On the sidewalk, jingling a cup is a little fellow we'll call MMORPG.COM. "What's that?", asks MMORPG.COM. "It's a sack of money", says Guy At Desk. "Apparently we're making it now and The Sack Man said I have to take this home." MMORPG.COM asks Guy At Desk if he can interview him, gather some information for an article he'd like to write. Guy At Desk is a nice enough fellow, and he enjoys arguing with MMORPG.COM about the directions the industry is going in, so they both go out for coffee.
Somewhere, Narisseldon's red eyes open, their heat steaming the sidewalk under which they rest. He doesn't know what has just happened. He only knows that their world will burn. Oh yes, their world will burn.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This did happen, MMO players now talk about financial models and monetary success of the games far more than they once did. If that monetary success was always being ploughed back into the game then profit would be more relevant, but more often than not it is put into the next sub par MMO.
There is a feeling of being cheated out of your dreams for the future of the genre. Now some may say 'get a life' but 'get a life' can be applied to the whole of gaming. Or they say 'find another game you like', but there is nothing out there as good as the way MMOs were headed. We saw the genre making bigger, bolder and more varied MMOs with richer communities; then we saw it make smaller, one template, soloplayer MMO's.
Its hardly surprising that many of us look at these figures and say 'so what'?
I will leave the drama production to Lizardbones, even I don't think content locusts like Nari are some sort of devil.
This is the second or third thread that got posted in the MMORPG Discussion Forum.
How many of you are like me?
Have either recently given up on a game you have played for a long time or have been let down by one of the more recent POS games that have been released, AC2 SWG, and are now just wating and hoping that one of the near future games wont be one big pile of horse dung to throw in with the rest of your 4 year old games.
I may try to turn the drama into literature, but it's been here since the beginning. Since before WoW released even. People are just incorporating current events into their posts. Face it. We're all Drama Llamas in one way or another and these forums aren't immune to that particular disease and never have been.
**
I recommend that everyone go to the Pub forum(s) and go to the oldest pages and then start working your way backwards through time. It is interesting, enlightening and with the knowledge that living in the future gives you, pretty humorous.
* Forward through time. Technically you're starting at the farthest point back in history and working your way forward.
**
PvP: A Dead Horse Beaten To Dust - It doesn't end. This is from 2004 folks and this guy was already calling the PvP discussions a dead horse. In 2018 we'll be arguing about monetization systems still.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.