wow have a subscription. lineage 1 I believe is sub base in most area. Assuming the data from swtor is the same, half of the player actually pay a subscription. Only maple story is purely f2p. I'm sure there are many asian mmorpg that could make the list though.
Indeed some already mentioned it F2P models are hypocritical and goes against its title free to play . It's more like Free to Try then we will put you on cash shop needle (drug).
Think about it game with subscription gives you full access to content for 30 days. In this term most casuals are bored and see most casual content possible.
While F2P is build carefully and tricky with help of human psychology. You can find some analysis of F2P mini books about it. But to be honest most of gamers aren't smartest people. And you realize this in :teamspeek in game world chat, on forum QQ . How do you think how many people will read this post ? And how many will accept it? Very little I will tell you. When Mail ru announced greatest scum in history of mmorpg only 10 k people signed petition also world wide not just from Russia. So open minded people represent 1 or 2 % of gaming community. No wonder why F2P cash Shop drug makes so much money .
CrossFire example 1 match 80 hui ( hui let's say hui is some kind of in game currency ) Weapon cost from 2.6 k up to 17k + as you see you will have to farm shit load of time this weapons why not to buy them for cash ? F2P are designed to push people to limit and fore them buy something.
FACT and this numbers just prove that F2P are worst. They smile to you and tells you it's F2p and after that you're on needle .
Indeed some already mentioned it F2P models are hypocritical and goes against its title free to play . It's more like Free to Try then we will put you on cash shop needle (drug).
It's the end-user's responsibility to just say no to drugs. Today, I couldn't play Candy Crush on my cellphone because I "ran out of lives". My options were A: Buy more lives in the cash shop or B: Ask my Facebook friends who play Candy Crush for more lives. There's no way in hell I'm buying more lives, and I don't the stupid game connected to my FB account, so I deleted it off my phone.
Indeed some already mentioned it F2P models are hypocritical and goes against its title free to play . It's more like Free to Try then we will put you on cash shop needle (drug).
It's the end-user's responsibility to just say no to drugs. Today, I couldn't play Candy Crush on my cellphone because I "ran out of lives". My options were A: Buy more lives in the cash shop or B: Ask my Facebook friends who play Candy Crush for more lives. There's no way in hell I'm buying more lives, and I don't the stupid game connected to my FB account, so I deleted it off my phone.
I tested that game and main purpose was if it is addictive enough to make people pour money in it ( actually I tasted a lot of those game and all had same purpose is game addictive and does it stimulate player to put money into it. . It's rely sad that we have so many dumb people.....
PS: Also, over 15.000 posts and Nariu still doesn't know how to insert a link in his posts...
Off topic, but for the past month or two I haven't been able to copy and paste or use the link feature using Internet Explorer on this site. I have to use other web browsers if I want to link, perhaps Nariu is having the same issue.
which doesn't mean anything close to what people are trying to make it mean. The OP might as well have said f2p makes more money than your mom.
For the record I find peoples attempts to make one out to be better than the other totally stupid. Everyone doing it does it because they want their choice to mean something about them. It has nothing at all to do with the dumb ass reasons they actually type out. What I like is good so I am a real mmo gamer. What you pick is bad so you must be stupid.and your games sucks...pretty much sums up 90% of the posts on this topic.
There are two different issues here; having a personal preference for a given revenue model, and the practical discussion of which model is more successful. Having a personal preference for a revenue model is, as far as I can tell, stupid. If you enjoy a game, that should be all that matters, not how you pay for it, and if you don't enjoy a game, you shouldn't be paying in any form.
That said, if what we are looking at is the practicalities of what makes more sense for game developers/publishers to do in order to have long, financially healthy lives for their products, it seems pretty clear that relying *solely* on subscriptions for your revenue is a model that is going the way of the dodo. It's not about whether that is "good" or "bad," it is simply reality. Even WoW has a limited hybrid model, and if they hadn't added the cash shop, they would have left more than 200 million on the table last year alone. It's kind of a no brainer.
So if a game charges you $100 a month to play, but you enjoy it, that's fine is it? When do things become too much?
You sound like a addict and that's the problem. Of course there are, 'good', and, 'bad', pricing models for everything, if there wasn't companies would charge as high as they wanted. That's how they operate, for the highest profit margin on whatever it is there selling. One has to protect themselves from being exploited.
The practicalities are that many of the mmos of the last few years should have died out. Most of them simply weren't good enough to compete in the marketplace, under a subscription model. A subscription model is just a better deal for players because ultimately that's who a developer is responsible to keep interested, with new content and features.
But then f2p came along and helped these failed games limp along with a couple of thousand whales buying crap off a cash shop. So what do we have now? Games designed around wringing out the last few bucks from players at ever turn.
F2P is a profitable model, no doubt but I feel it has styimised the development of MMOs. We would have had fewer games but the ones about would probably have been better..
I hate free to play. I always end up paying to play regardless.
May be you need more will power.
I have never spent even a dime on a f2p game.
It'd be interesting to see the list of all your toons to see what you've managed to accomplish within each of these games you played. You describe your game play as something like "Log in, do some stuff grab a few levels and move on" It's great if that's fun for you, but I don't think most people want to approach MMOs that way.
Lets assume wow has 4m NA/Eu players at $15 a month thats 60m in revenue every month so how did wow not make $720+m in revenue ? That chart is revenue not profit so wows numbers should be way higher.
In fact the chart says based on free to play earnings and wow is not f2p so how is it even on the list ?
Aye, the numbers are weird.
WoW has approx. 3.5M NA/EU players actually, 3.500.000x12x15= $630M at least.
There's also a very interesting line in the article:
"Despite its chronic subscriber loss, World of Warcraft managed to generate $213 million in micro-transaction sales in 2013."
That would mean that the number for WoW is ONLY for micro transactions, aka cosmetic pets and mounts, not counting the subscriptions. Which means WoW crushes all the other games in that list when you add everything up.
Nice try though. How does that foot taste?
Originally posted by laserit Just shows where the cattle like to graze.
PS: Also, over 15.000 posts and Nariu still doesn't know how to insert a link in his posts...
The whole article that's linked is based around digital distribution. So stuff purchased through Steam would be counted while things purchased at Best Buy would not, unless they were downloaded. It does seem pretty certain that WoW's numbers are only their cash shop.
However, WoW doesn't operate in a vacuum. WoW does crush every other competitor single handed, but the other point of the article is that F2P as a business model for the industry makes a lot of money. Currently it's generating more revenue than subscriptions for the industry as well. As greenreen pointed out, there's no details on actual profits, manageability, price discrimination or anything else, just total revenue. So take that for whatever it's worth.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Lets assume wow has 4m NA/Eu players at $15 a month thats 60m in revenue every month so how did wow not make $720+m in revenue ? That chart is revenue not profit so wows numbers should be way higher.
In fact the chart says based on free to play earnings and wow is not f2p so how is it even on the list ?
Aye, the numbers are weird.
WoW has approx. 3.5M NA/EU players actually, 3.500.000x12x15= $630M at least.
There's also a very interesting line in the article:
"Despite its chronic subscriber loss, World of Warcraft managed to generate $213 million in micro-transaction sales in 2013."
That would mean that the number for WoW is ONLY for micro transactions, aka cosmetic pets and mounts, not counting the subscriptions. Which means WoW crushes all the other games in that list when you add everything up.
Nice try though. How does that foot taste?
Originally posted by laserit Just shows where the cattle like to graze.
PS: Also, over 15.000 posts and Nariu still doesn't know how to insert a link in his posts...
The whole article that's linked is based around digital distribution. So stuff purchased through Steam would be counted while things purchased at Best Buy would not, unless they were downloaded. It does seem pretty certain that WoW's numbers are only their cash shop.
However, WoW doesn't operate in a vacuum. WoW does crush every other competitor single handed, but the other point of the article is that F2P as a business model for the industry makes a lot of money. Currently it's generating more revenue than subscriptions for the industry as well. As greenreen pointed out, there's no details on actual profits, manageability, price discrimination or anything else, just total revenue. So take that for whatever it's worth.
But it's also only a snapshot. It's 2013. But what is the consistency for those publshers?
What did that list look like 1, 3, and 5 years ago? What will it look like in 1, 3, and 5 years from now?
The claim is that F2P makes more money than P2P, and in each given year the F2P revenue models are on top, But if it isn't the exact same games in the list every year, then for those publishers, it means nothing. And the total grossing revenue for the individual titles may not be as impressive when looking at 3 or 5 year profits as compared to 1 or 2 good years. That said, I bet titles like Maple Story have topped that list for a long time. But not all F2P titles enjoy such success.
Lets assume wow has 4m NA/Eu players at $15 a month thats 60m in revenue every month so how did wow not make $720+m in revenue ? That chart is revenue not profit so wows numbers should be way higher.
In fact the chart says based on free to play earnings and wow is not f2p so how is it even on the list ?
Aye, the numbers are weird.
WoW has approx. 3.5M NA/EU players actually, 3.500.000x12x15= $630M at least.
There's also a very interesting line in the article:
"Despite its chronic subscriber loss, World of Warcraft managed to generate $213 million in micro-transaction sales in 2013."
That would mean that the number for WoW is ONLY for micro transactions, aka cosmetic pets and mounts, not counting the subscriptions. Which means WoW crushes all the other games in that list when you add everything up.
Nice try though. How does that foot taste?
Originally posted by laserit Just shows where the cattle like to graze.
PS: Also, over 15.000 posts and Nariu still doesn't know how to insert a link in his posts...
The whole article that's linked is based around digital distribution. So stuff purchased through Steam would be counted while things purchased at Best Buy would not, unless they were downloaded. It does seem pretty certain that WoW's numbers are only their cash shop.
However, WoW doesn't operate in a vacuum. WoW does crush every other competitor single handed, but the other point of the article is that F2P as a business model for the industry makes a lot of money. Currently it's generating more revenue than subscriptions for the industry as well. As greenreen pointed out, there's no details on actual profits, manageability, price discrimination or anything else, just total revenue. So take that for whatever it's worth.
But it's also only a snapshot. It's 2013. But what is the consistency for those publshers?
What did that list look like 1, 3, and 5 years ago? What will it look like in 1, 3, and 5 years from now?
The claim is that F2P makes more money than P2P, and in each given year the F2P revenue models are on top, But if it isn't the exact same games in the list every year, then for those publishers, it means nothing. And the total grossing revenue for the individual titles may not be as impressive when looking at 3 or 5 year profits as compared to 1 or 2 good years. That said, I bet titles like Maple Story have topped that list for a long time. But not all F2P titles enjoy such success.
This is an industry overview. Individual publishers would make decisions based on their own games and what they want to do. For instance, ESO is going with a subscription and there's no reason to think that for ESO, this isn't the right choice. I think the best choice is a system that allows for a great deal of flexibility. Some aspect of playing for free or at a low cost, some aspect of just paying a monthly sub and then premium options as well. This might be accomplished by not having any F2P options initially. Personally, my preference is buying a box, and then not having a sub, but that seems to be the least likely scenario moving forward.
There are many things I'm not sure of, and one of them is whether or not the information presented makes any sense to anyone other than people who are interested in arguing about monetization models. I have no real idea what someone developing a game would do with the information. There would have to be a lot more detail provided to find models that matched up with the game being made before basing any sort of decision off of their information. Luckily for SuperData, it looks like the detailed information is worth money, because they can sell it. I am absolutely positive that the information that is worth something isn't what we're seeing in the infographics.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
F2p games have just as much support bandwidth and hardware as p2p games. They have just as high a quality. They have just as much development and updates as p2p. In most games there is no difference between the two.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar F2p games have just as much support bandwidth and hardware as p2p games. They have just as high a quality. They have just as much development and updates as p2p. In most games there is no difference between the two.
Sir this is most stupid thing I even heard !
GW2 updates ? good content ? SWTOR ? if you're F2p you don't even have support access of forum access
Silkroad 300 $ and you can buy hp dps Stucking buffs ?
CrossFire a game that looks like lost in time continuum some where around 2004 2005 Full of cheaters
etc.
I don't know from what planet you are and what are you're intention but what you're saying is a lie and wrong information
Originally posted by Gilllean Originally posted by VengeSunsoarF2p games have just as much support bandwidth and hardware as p2p games. They have just as high a quality. They have just as much development and updates as p2p. In most games there is no difference between the two.
Sir this is most stupid thing I even heard !
GW2 updates ? good content ?SWTOR ? if you're F2p you don't even have support access of forum access
Silkroad 300 $ and you can buy hp dps Stucking buffs ?
CrossFire a game that looks like lost in time continuum some where around 2004 2005 Full of cheaters
etc.
I don't know from what planet you are and what are you're intention but what you're saying is a lie and wrong information
There are all different ranges of F2P just like there are some really awful P2P games. Games like SWTOR don't really count either, that is a failed p2P game that is now f2p.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoarF2p games have just as much support bandwidth and hardware as p2p games. They have just as high a quality. They have just as much development and updates as p2p. In most games there is no difference between the two.
Sir this is most stupid thing I even heard !
GW2 updates ? good content ?SWTOR ? if you're F2p you don't even have support access of forum access
Silkroad 300 $ and you can buy hp dps Stucking buffs ?
CrossFire a game that looks like lost in time continuum some where around 2004 2005 Full of cheaters
etc.
I don't know from what planet you are and what are you're intention but what you're saying is a lie and wrong information
There are all different ranges of F2P just like there are some really awful P2P games. Games like SWTOR don't really count either, that is a failed p2P game that is now f2p.
You did not read the fine print where it states WoW and SWToR are "primarily" subscription based games. What that means is most likely both make more money from their subscriptions than their cash shops. In other words, WoW & SWToR make lots of money.
So if a game charges you $100 a month to play, but you enjoy it, that's fine is it? When do things become too much?
You sound like a addict and that's the problem. Of course there are, 'good', and, 'bad', pricing models for everything, if there wasn't companies would charge as high as they wanted. That's how they operate, for the highest profit margin on whatever it is there selling. One has to protect themselves from being exploited.
The practicalities are that many of the mmos of the last few years should have died out. Most of them simply weren't good enough to compete in the marketplace, under a subscription model. A subscription model is just a better deal for players because ultimately that's who a developer is responsible to keep interested, with new content and features.
But then f2p came along and helped these failed games limp along with a couple of thousand whales buying crap off a cash shop. So what do we have now? Games designed around wringing out the last few bucks from players at ever turn.
F2P is a profitable model, no doubt but I feel it has styimised the development of MMOs. We would have had fewer games but the ones about would probably have been better..
An addict? Because I don't feel irrational nerd rage over sound business decisions? If you feel like you got your money's worth, it doesn't matter if you are spending $1.00 or $1,000. The important thing is that you feel you are receiving sufficient value for your money, just like in any other transaction. As for "exploited," get off the crazy train. These are entertainment products. By definition, every dollar spent is completely frivolous and unnecessary. What you are advocating here is for companies to be babysitters, making decisions about what is "best" for the players, instead of doing what is best for the companies and letting the players actually take responsibility for their own decisions.
And the games aren't failed. Look at the numbers. That argument is a crock. The sub only model was a bad idea, it was leaving money on the table for no reason. The games didn't fail, the companies woke up. The subscriber experience is still better in hybrid games, and nobody is forcing you to use the cash shop. The existence of the cash shop allows games to find increased success and continue to grow even without millions of subscribers, which is only a good thing, because everyone has different tastes and the greater the number of games that are prospering the greater the chance that someone will find the right game for his/her taste.
Originally posted by WikileaksEU
The list doesn't include GW2 so they probably are not looking at ALL online games. I'm pretty sure GW2 is top 10.
The F2P numbers don't include box sales, which is GW2's primary revenue source. You think they have one of the top ten cash shops?
Originally posted by Ender4
Games like SWTOR don't really count either, that is a failed p2P game that is now f2p.
Anybody who classifies a game that is making more than 200 million dollars a year as a failure is someone who can safely be ignored.
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 data shown is by itself totally meaningless for the ongoing "mine is better than yours" discussions in the thread.
(Even if we disregard that there is no overall generic "best monetization method". What works best for one game doesn't necessarily for an other.)
One list was a totally lopsided list of random selected games out of a subcategory of the whole market (digital), mishmashing different game genres together and disregarding big (actually huge) portions of some of the games' revenue while using the full revenue of others. While the list itself seems to be correct if you read all it's disclaimers, how people use it in this thread is definitely not.
The second set shown with the overall market numbers is just as meaningless.
It disregards a big chunk of the market (physical sales) that is not distributed equally across the two payment methods, so it would definitely have an influence on the overall result.
More importantly, the overall market data also doesn't show anything about how much budget was needed to make the games in each category, nor how successful they are over time. These are crucial factors in defining success of a monetization model.
For all we know the 8.3billion of the one category could be 8.3 billion totally failed games making $1 per year each and then instantly dying. Yes.. exaggeration. Hope it gets the point accross.
But it's also only a snapshot. It's 2013. But what is the consistency for those publshers?
What did that list look like 1, 3, and 5 years ago? What will it look like in 1, 3, and 5 years from now?
The claim is that F2P makes more money than P2P, and in each given year the F2P revenue models are on top, But if it isn't the exact same games in the list every year, then for those publishers, it means nothing. And the total grossing revenue for the individual titles may not be as impressive when looking at 3 or 5 year profits as compared to 1 or 2 good years. That said, I bet titles like Maple Story have topped that list for a long time. But not all F2P titles enjoy such success.
Not only is this relevant, but also different regions see a lot of different growth. Nexon has been losing money in their NA market, but see phenomenal growth in other areas.
Lets assume wow has 4m NA/Eu players at $15 a month thats 60m in revenue every month so how did wow not make $720+m in revenue ? That chart is revenue not profit so wows numbers should be way higher.
In fact the chart says based on free to play earnings and wow is not f2p so how is it even on the list ?
Read the whole page before you say the numbers are fake. It specifically states that the numbers are strictly for the F2P portions of game earnings, they don't include sub revenue. All cash shop revenue is reported as F2P, and WoW does have one of those.
then this list bullshit and prove nothing, wow here because of the mounts shop and that funny to see they are in the top 10 LOL.
p2p game could win more money we know nothing, again
It disregards a big chunk of the market (physical sales) that is not distributed equally across the two payment methods, so it would definitely have an influence on the overall result.
Physical sales would only be truly relevant in terms of the initial purchase. Unless we have reason to believe the cash shop cards sold at various retailers count as physical sales, and a massive number of those cards are selling, the F2P and sub numbers should be fairly accurate.
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 feel freemium is the way to go so those who like to sub are happy and those who want to play for free can too.
You will never see a " freemium " that gives 100% access to the cash shop. Simply because a normal sub-option will never exist in a microtransaction game as it completely undermines the game design process. I have no doubt a number of games offer monthly packaged deals that give considerable value over buying the pieces individually, but it will never be close to the value that a sub option offers.
Comments
I think 4 of the games are mmorpg on the list.
3 of them actually have a subscription.
wow have a subscription. lineage 1 I believe is sub base in most area. Assuming the data from swtor is the same, half of the player actually pay a subscription. Only maple story is purely f2p. I'm sure there are many asian mmorpg that could make the list though.
Indeed some already mentioned it F2P models are hypocritical and goes against its title free to play . It's more like Free to Try then we will put you on cash shop needle (drug).
Think about it game with subscription gives you full access to content for 30 days. In this term most casuals are bored and see most casual content possible.
While F2P is build carefully and tricky with help of human psychology. You can find some analysis of F2P mini books about it. But to be honest most of gamers aren't smartest people. And you realize this in :teamspeek in game world chat, on forum QQ . How do you think how many people will read this post ? And how many will accept it? Very little I will tell you. When Mail ru announced greatest scum in history of mmorpg only 10 k people signed petition also world wide not just from Russia. So open minded people represent 1 or 2 % of gaming community. No wonder why F2P cash Shop drug makes so much money .
CrossFire example 1 match 80 hui ( hui let's say hui is some kind of in game currency ) Weapon cost from 2.6 k up to 17k + as you see you will have to farm shit load of time this weapons why not to buy them for cash ? F2P are designed to push people to limit and fore them buy something.
FACT and this numbers just prove that F2P are worst. They smile to you and tells you it's F2p and after that you're on needle .
PEOPLE are so stupid
It's the end-user's responsibility to just say no to drugs. Today, I couldn't play Candy Crush on my cellphone because I "ran out of lives". My options were A: Buy more lives in the cash shop or B: Ask my Facebook friends who play Candy Crush for more lives. There's no way in hell I'm buying more lives, and I don't the stupid game connected to my FB account, so I deleted it off my phone.
Currently playing: Eldevin Online as a Deadly Assassin
I tested that game and main purpose was if it is addictive enough to make people pour money in it ( actually I tasted a lot of those game and all had same purpose is game addictive and does it stimulate player to put money into it. . It's rely sad that we have so many dumb people.....
Off topic, but for the past month or two I haven't been able to copy and paste or use the link feature using Internet Explorer on this site. I have to use other web browsers if I want to link, perhaps Nariu is having the same issue.
So if a game charges you $100 a month to play, but you enjoy it, that's fine is it? When do things become too much?
You sound like a addict and that's the problem. Of course there are, 'good', and, 'bad', pricing models for everything, if there wasn't companies would charge as high as they wanted. That's how they operate, for the highest profit margin on whatever it is there selling. One has to protect themselves from being exploited.
The practicalities are that many of the mmos of the last few years should have died out. Most of them simply weren't good enough to compete in the marketplace, under a subscription model. A subscription model is just a better deal for players because ultimately that's who a developer is responsible to keep interested, with new content and features.
But then f2p came along and helped these failed games limp along with a couple of thousand whales buying crap off a cash shop. So what do we have now? Games designed around wringing out the last few bucks from players at ever turn.
F2P is a profitable model, no doubt but I feel it has styimised the development of MMOs. We would have had fewer games but the ones about would probably have been better..
This looks like a job for....The Riviera Kid!
It'd be interesting to see the list of all your toons to see what you've managed to accomplish within each of these games you played. You describe your game play as something like "Log in, do some stuff grab a few levels and move on" It's great if that's fun for you, but I don't think most people want to approach MMOs that way.
The whole article that's linked is based around digital distribution. So stuff purchased through Steam would be counted while things purchased at Best Buy would not, unless they were downloaded. It does seem pretty certain that WoW's numbers are only their cash shop.
However, WoW doesn't operate in a vacuum. WoW does crush every other competitor single handed, but the other point of the article is that F2P as a business model for the industry makes a lot of money. Currently it's generating more revenue than subscriptions for the industry as well. As greenreen pointed out, there's no details on actual profits, manageability, price discrimination or anything else, just total revenue. So take that for whatever it's worth.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
LoL is not an mmorpg.
You can't compare two different genres.
The list doesn't include GW2 so they probably are not looking at ALL online games. I'm pretty sure GW2 is top 10.
But it's also only a snapshot. It's 2013. But what is the consistency for those publshers?
What did that list look like 1, 3, and 5 years ago? What will it look like in 1, 3, and 5 years from now?
The claim is that F2P makes more money than P2P, and in each given year the F2P revenue models are on top, But if it isn't the exact same games in the list every year, then for those publishers, it means nothing. And the total grossing revenue for the individual titles may not be as impressive when looking at 3 or 5 year profits as compared to 1 or 2 good years. That said, I bet titles like Maple Story have topped that list for a long time. But not all F2P titles enjoy such success.
That is really the mystery we should all be working on. This other stuff is just a distraction.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This is an industry overview. Individual publishers would make decisions based on their own games and what they want to do. For instance, ESO is going with a subscription and there's no reason to think that for ESO, this isn't the right choice. I think the best choice is a system that allows for a great deal of flexibility. Some aspect of playing for free or at a low cost, some aspect of just paying a monthly sub and then premium options as well. This might be accomplished by not having any F2P options initially. Personally, my preference is buying a box, and then not having a sub, but that seems to be the least likely scenario moving forward.
There are many things I'm not sure of, and one of them is whether or not the information presented makes any sense to anyone other than people who are interested in arguing about monetization models. I have no real idea what someone developing a game would do with the information. There would have to be a lot more detail provided to find models that matched up with the game being made before basing any sort of decision off of their information. Luckily for SuperData, it looks like the detailed information is worth money, because they can sell it. I am absolutely positive that the information that is worth something isn't what we're seeing in the infographics.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Sir this is most stupid thing I even heard !
GW2 updates ? good content ?
SWTOR ? if you're F2p you don't even have support access of forum access
Silkroad 300 $ and you can buy hp dps Stucking buffs ?
CrossFire a game that looks like lost in time continuum some where around 2004 2005 Full of cheaters
etc.
I don't know from what planet you are and what are you're intention but what you're saying is a lie and wrong information
GW2 updates ? good content ?SWTOR ? if you're F2p you don't even have support access of forum access
Silkroad 300 $ and you can buy hp dps Stucking buffs ?
CrossFire a game that looks like lost in time continuum some where around 2004 2005 Full of cheaters
etc.
I don't know from what planet you are and what are you're intention but what you're saying is a lie and wrong information
There are all different ranges of F2P just like there are some really awful P2P games. Games like SWTOR don't really count either, that is a failed p2P game that is now f2p.
You did not read the fine print where it states WoW and SWToR are "primarily" subscription based games. What that means is most likely both make more money from their subscriptions than their cash shops. In other words, WoW & SWToR make lots of money.
An addict? Because I don't feel irrational nerd rage over sound business decisions? If you feel like you got your money's worth, it doesn't matter if you are spending $1.00 or $1,000. The important thing is that you feel you are receiving sufficient value for your money, just like in any other transaction. As for "exploited," get off the crazy train. These are entertainment products. By definition, every dollar spent is completely frivolous and unnecessary. What you are advocating here is for companies to be babysitters, making decisions about what is "best" for the players, instead of doing what is best for the companies and letting the players actually take responsibility for their own decisions.
And the games aren't failed. Look at the numbers. That argument is a crock. The sub only model was a bad idea, it was leaving money on the table for no reason. The games didn't fail, the companies woke up. The subscriber experience is still better in hybrid games, and nobody is forcing you to use the cash shop. The existence of the cash shop allows games to find increased success and continue to grow even without millions of subscribers, which is only a good thing, because everyone has different tastes and the greater the number of games that are prospering the greater the chance that someone will find the right game for his/her taste.
The F2P numbers don't include box sales, which is GW2's primary revenue source. You think they have one of the top ten cash shops?Anybody who classifies a game that is making more than 200 million dollars a year as a failure is someone who can safely be ignored.
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 data shown is by itself totally meaningless for the ongoing "mine is better than yours" discussions in the thread.
(Even if we disregard that there is no overall generic "best monetization method". What works best for one game doesn't necessarily for an other.)
One list was a totally lopsided list of random selected games out of a subcategory of the whole market (digital), mishmashing different game genres together and disregarding big (actually huge) portions of some of the games' revenue while using the full revenue of others. While the list itself seems to be correct if you read all it's disclaimers, how people use it in this thread is definitely not.
The second set shown with the overall market numbers is just as meaningless.
It disregards a big chunk of the market (physical sales) that is not distributed equally across the two payment methods, so it would definitely have an influence on the overall result.
More importantly, the overall market data also doesn't show anything about how much budget was needed to make the games in each category, nor how successful they are over time. These are crucial factors in defining success of a monetization model.
For all we know the 8.3billion of the one category could be 8.3 billion totally failed games making $1 per year each and then instantly dying. Yes.. exaggeration. Hope it gets the point accross.
Not only is this relevant, but also different regions see a lot of different growth. Nexon has been losing money in their NA market, but see phenomenal growth in other areas.
NA losses for 2011 to 2012:
Page 30 North America FY2012 Q1-Q3 YoY
FY2012 4Q
NA losses for Q1/Q2 2012 and 2013:
Comparing page 19 with page 30 of FY2012
What about this page with an awesome eagle on it?
http://www.newzoo.com/infographics/infographic-the-us-games-market/
170M 'Murican Gamers
104M Paying 'Murican Gamers - Which leaves
66M 'Murican Freeloaders
$20.5B in revenue generated
70.1M 'Murican Gamers playing MMOs
Or this one, without an Eagle?
http://www.superdataresearch.com/blog/infographic-digital-games-year-review-2013/
P2P Revenue - 2.8B
F2P Revenue - 8.3B
Looks like F2P is where investors might be looking to make their money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Physical sales would only be truly relevant in terms of the initial purchase. Unless we have reason to believe the cash shop cards sold at various retailers count as physical sales, and a massive number of those cards are selling, the F2P and sub numbers should be fairly accurate.
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 feel freemium is the way to go so those who like to sub are happy and those who want to play for free can too.
You will never see a " freemium " that gives 100% access to the cash shop. Simply because a normal sub-option will never exist in a microtransaction game as it completely undermines the game design process. I have no doubt a number of games offer monthly packaged deals that give considerable value over buying the pieces individually, but it will never be close to the value that a sub option offers.