In the end it doesn't even really matter how reliable the sources are, because basically every time data was used in this thread it was either misunderstood by the user or misrepresented / misused in order to support bogus claims or the user forgot to mention that the shown data is more or less irrelevant because important parts of it are simply missing.
5 billion revenue could mean 5 billion totally failed games that generate $1 each before instantly dying for all that we know.
The global market size of potatoes being bigger than the market size for Maseratis doesn't mean I would rather get a potato for christmas.
Or you can look at the total revenue increase year over year. You can argue if that means there are many games dying, or the same games are making more, but you can't get away from the fact that there are more money in F2P games.
In the end it doesn't even really matter how reliable the sources are, because basically every time data was used in this thread it was either misunderstood by the user or misrepresented / misused in order to support bogus claims or the user forgot to mention that the shown data is more or less irrelevant because important parts of it are simply missing.
5 billion revenue could mean 5 billion totally failed games that generate $1 each before instantly dying for all that we know.
The global market size of potatoes being bigger than the market size for Maseratis doesn't mean I would rather get a potato for christmas.
The website misinterprete the data already.
They dont' know lineage actually have a subscription in many areas. So they act as the total revenue are all from micro transaction while a huge percent is actually from subscription.
They said their source are from the publisher themself. The thing is you can't even trust the publishder data. They like to boaster data to bring more hype to their game.
That being said, the topic isn't even about mmorpg. Since 2 of 4 mmorpg are actually subscription. 1 of them are freemium with a huge percent of the player actually pay subscription. So the only game left is maplestory(which I believe is the only one without subscription).
Dont' get me wrong, F2P is big. Most of the revenue from Maple Story is probably from asians. And there are a bunch of F2P games in asia that can match maple story. Unlike western publisher, asian games either go subscription or microtransaction. Very few have freemium.
I can't believe how some people arnt' making the following point.
There ARE WAY MORE F2P games on the market with micro transactions than PURE P2P games. It's easy to make 4x the amount a p2p games make when there are 10x the number of f2p games.
This is a stupid analysis.... F2P CAN BE very successful, like SWTOR. P2P can be very successful like WoW. You have to analyze EACH game by itself.
For example, let's say FFXIV has 400k subscribers. When it's all said and done, it makes a very nice profit. If the operations cost for SWTOR is 1 million (purely for example) and it makes 1 million in profit.. that's a great return on investment. If another F2P has operations cost of 500k, but only makes 600k and 100k profit.. maybe that's not so great.
However, both free to play games get into the pile and you can say, wow, those two games make 1.6 million combined!!! that must be better than P2p.
So many comaprisions between apples and oranges in this thread it's not even funny. Just because one free to play game is successful it doesn't mean that ALL f2p games are sucessful Swtor may have a better model than other f2p, and WoW clearly shows P2p is the way to go. If F2P was better, why hasn't WoW switched years ago?
Each game has it's own merits, has its own costs and has its own model. Analyze it individually.
Each game has it's own merits, has its own costs and has its own model. Analyze it individually.
Your point is well taken, but to be fair, when you look at the numbers from that report, every single game on the top ten list is making more from it's cash shop than any game other than WoW has *ever* made in a year from subscriptions. So, while there may be a lot of poorly implemented F2P games that make less than sub games, well done F2P appears to offer substantially higher potential revenue for new games than subscriptions alone can compete with.
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.
Each game has it's own merits, has its own costs and has its own model. Analyze it individually.
Your point is well taken, but to be fair, when you look at the numbers from that report, every single game on the top ten list is making more from it's cash shop than any game other than WoW has *ever* made in a year from subscriptions. So, while there may be a lot of poorly implemented F2P games that make less than sub games, well done F2P appears to offer substantially higher potential revenue for new games than subscriptions alone can compete with.
Free to play is the classical "Bait and switch." They bait you with "free" and then charge you an arm and a leg for really essential quality of life upgrades (inventory and action bars).
4 months ago I went back to SWTOR to check out the digital expanion, the Cartel wars or something. I had to pay a lot of credits I had accumlated to unlock action bars, inventory slots, etc. I didn't pay any money because my old account had accumlated cartle points.
However, I saw nothing that showed me the horrible game engine had changed. The game was essentially the same but not it was "free 2 play."
I'll reiterate what's been said in this thread. Mcdonalds makes more money than a chain of salad restuarants. Mcdonalds is 100x more profitable... however, profitable =/ quality.
Some companies makes the conscious decision that they are happy with a certain amount of profit without comprimising their brand name and their quality. The rehaul of FFXIV comes to mind.
F2P, especially the SWTOR model reminds me of predatory lending. It feeds off of people's base instincts and stupidity. You think you're getting a free game or at least, for a nominal fee, but if you sit down and calcualte the amount of money you put into the f2p game, on average it will be more than p2p. You have a lot of people who spend 100 bucks a month on a free2p game. That pays for 6 people who don't spend a dime for the same period.
What is shocking to me is the people defending this model as "the way to go for all MMOS." Let me ask you, are you happy with the content you get with the f2p model? 50% of the content is additional cash shop items.
Gamers should be up in arms that this model is akin to asking a fat man to eat a full cake everyday. Most people have self control, but some don't, and those that don't are skewing these numbers into thinking this is a "good" model.
I have yet to see a F2P game that offers quality and justifies staying. GW2 is the only one, but that's B2P and really doesn't offer much by way of "content."
Each game has ...every single game on the top ten list is making more from it's cash shop than any game other than WoW has *ever* made in a year from subscriptions....
Are you sure about that or is that a guess?
EQ at peak wasn't ludicrously far from 10 (yes it was still some way off, however that was during a time when the expected player base of the market was a fraction of what supposedly exists now, and when development costs were not as ludicrous). In over 10 years you are saying none of the AAA titles have held onto enough of the initial population to best $121m? It's possible but not something I would bet on.
I can't believe how some people arnt' making the following point.
There ARE WAY MORE F2P games on the market with micro transactions than PURE P2P games. It's easy to make 4x the amount a p2p games make when there are 10x the number of f2p games.
This is a stupid analysis.... F2P CAN BE very successful, like SWTOR. P2P can be very successful like WoW. You have to analyze EACH game by itself.
For example, let's say FFXIV has 400k subscribers. When it's all said and done, it makes a very nice profit. If the operations cost for SWTOR is 1 million (purely for example) and it makes 1 million in profit.. that's a great return on investment. If another F2P has operations cost of 500k, but only makes 600k and 100k profit.. maybe that's not so great.
However, both free to play games get into the pile and you can say, wow, those two games make 1.6 million combined!!! that must be better than P2p.
So many comaprisions between apples and oranges in this thread it's not even funny. Just because one free to play game is successful it doesn't mean that ALL f2p games are sucessful Swtor may have a better model than other f2p, and WoW clearly shows P2p is the way to go. If F2P was better, why hasn't WoW switched years ago?
Each game has it's own merits, has its own costs and has its own model. Analyze it individually.
I said the same thing earlier, but people are too dense to make the connections we did.
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
I can't believe how some people arnt' making the following point.
There ARE WAY MORE F2P games on the market with micro transactions than PURE P2P games. It's easy to make 4x the amount a p2p games make when there are 10x the number of f2p games.
This is a stupid analysis.... F2P CAN BE very successful, like SWTOR. P2P can be very successful like WoW. You have to analyze EACH game by itself.
For example, let's say FFXIV has 400k subscribers. When it's all said and done, it makes a very nice profit. If the operations cost for SWTOR is 1 million (purely for example) and it makes 1 million in profit.. that's a great return on investment. If another F2P has operations cost of 500k, but only makes 600k and 100k profit.. maybe that's not so great.
However, both free to play games get into the pile and you can say, wow, those two games make 1.6 million combined!!! that must be better than P2p.
So many comaprisions between apples and oranges in this thread it's not even funny. Just because one free to play game is successful it doesn't mean that ALL f2p games are sucessful Swtor may have a better model than other f2p, and WoW clearly shows P2p is the way to go. If F2P was better, why hasn't WoW switched years ago?
Each game has it's own merits, has its own costs and has its own model. Analyze it individually.
I said the same thing earlier, but people are too dense to make the connections we did.
I've done some number crunching. the 139 million in digital sales is actually FANTASTIC. You would need to have 900k subscribers paying $13 bucks a month to equal that; however, SWTOR released a digital expansion last year (Rise of the Hut Cartel) costing $30. I would LOVE to know what thier ditial sales were in 2012.
Regardless, the microtransactions bring in 11.6 million dollars a month in revenue (not profit) which is twice as much as a game like FFXIV (which will bring in 5.2 million a month from subscriptions if they average 400k subscribers).
Here's the big elephant in the room though. Star Wars is unique because of the IP. You have a base of 1-2 million "free to play" players that can buy the digital expansion or buy from the cash shop at any moment. you also have people who don't spend a dime in F2P arguing "IT's great... I don't spend a penny!" Well, you also have Mr. $150 dollars a month in cartel points that pas for 9 others who havn't bought anything.
Long story short, this model works exceptionally well with SWTOR due to the IP. How's this working out for Rift? LotR? Perfect World? Warhammer? AoC? Not very good.
So with a company like FFXIV, do you want 5.2 million in steady, revenue with a loyal (and smaller fan base than SWTOR) to keep a game going... or do you want a F2P market where your IP cannot sustain the same as SWTOR (with movies, toys, cartoons, books etc).
SWTOR =/ that all MMOS should be F2P.
Wow =/ that all MMOS should be P2P.
As said earlier, this is a case by case basis. Stop arguing one over the other.
PS: My preference is P2P with cosmetic cash shop items like Wow. then you get the best of both worlds. A steady subscription stream with spikes in profit from the cash shop. However, I would venture to guess WoW subscription revnue is considerably higher than it's digital downloads.
I think FFXIV will do the same. It's already been confirmed that cosmetic changes will be added to the FFXIV cash shop very soon, like paid name changes, server transfers, character race changes, etc.
What is shocking to me is the people defending this model as "the way to go for all MMOS." Let me ask you, are you happy with the content you get with the f2p model? 50% of the content is additional cash shop items.
The best way to go is to have a subscription and a free option, with a cash shop. That way the people who understand how these things work can do the smart thing and just subscribe, but the company still gets the money from all the idiots as well. It would be irresponsible for them to leave that money on the table.
Originally posted by Miblet
Are you sure about that or is that a guess?
EQ at peak wasn't ludicrously far from 10 (yes it was still some way off, however that was during a time when the expected player base of the market was a fraction of what supposedly exists now, and when development costs were not as ludicrous). In over 10 years you are saying none of the AAA titles have held onto enough of the initial population to best $121m? It's possible but not something I would bet on.
I am sure about it for the last few years, since WoW has been the only game any time recently to have enough subs to make more on them than the lowest game in that list made on it's cash shop. "Ever" was a guess. I haven't actually checked to see whether EQ's numbers were high enough at some point in the earlier days to beat the lowest game on the list..
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 can't believe how some people arnt' making the following point.
There ARE WAY MORE F2P games on the market with micro transactions than PURE P2P games. It's easy to make 4x the amount a p2p games make when there are 10x the number of f2p games.
This is a stupid analysis.... F2P CAN BE very successful, like SWTOR. P2P can be very successful like WoW. You have to analyze EACH game by itself.
For example, let's say FFXIV has 400k subscribers. When it's all said and done, it makes a very nice profit. If the operations cost for SWTOR is 1 million (purely for example) and it makes 1 million in profit.. that's a great return on investment. If another F2P has operations cost of 500k, but only makes 600k and 100k profit.. maybe that's not so great.
However, both free to play games get into the pile and you can say, wow, those two games make 1.6 million combined!!! that must be better than P2p.
So many comaprisions between apples and oranges in this thread it's not even funny. Just because one free to play game is successful it doesn't mean that ALL f2p games are sucessful Swtor may have a better model than other f2p, and WoW clearly shows P2p is the way to go. If F2P was better, why hasn't WoW switched years ago?
Each game has it's own merits, has its own costs and has its own model. Analyze it individually.
Well, for one, it's an industry analysis, not an individual game analysis. No developer, F2P, P2P, digital sales or not is going to allow that kind of information to be released about an individual game. As an industry analysis, it is correct. F2P is making more money.
So here's a question. Why are there more F2P games? Is it easier to get investment dollars for F2P games? Is it easier to setup a F2P game? Or is it that in terms of cost and benefit, F2P makes more money? Perhaps it's just that in today's market, for long term benefits, most games need to be F2P to sustain long term viability.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
So here's a question. Why are there more F2P games? Is it easier to get investment dollars for F2P games? Is it easier to setup a F2P game? Or is it that in terms of cost and benefit, F2P makes more money? Perhaps it's just that in today's market, for long term benefits, most games need to be F2P to sustain long term viability.
Completely disagree. This is revisionist history. AoC, Warhammer, Rift, Aion, LoTR, Secret World and SWTOR ALL OF THEM started as P2P.
If as you suggest, it's a no brainer to go F2P, why didn't they start out as a F2P model, why did they had to switch when teh games bombed? It's because every single company PREFERS P2P. Look at the MMOS coming out soon... why is Wildstar and Elder Scrolls Online coming out as P2P? Yes, Everquest next is B2P model like GW2, but that just goes to show that "F2P" is the way to go is certainly NOT the case.
Steady, dependable subscription is what all these game makers are looking for, but sWTOR spent too much money to give up. They relied on thier IP and came up with a model that works perfectly for them. I cannot say the same for any other AAA mmo.
Completely disagree. This is revisionist history. AoC, Warhammer, Rift, Aion, LoTR, Secret World and SWTOR ALL OF THEM started as P2P.
If as you suggest, it's a no brainer to go F2P, why didn't they start out as a F2P model, why did they had to switch when teh games bombed? It's because every single company PREFERS P2P. Look at the MMOS coming out soon... why is Wildstar and Elder Scrolls Online coming out as P2P? Yes, Everquest next is B2P model like GW2, but that just goes to show that "F2P" is the way to go is certainly NOT the case.
Steady, dependable subscription is what all these game makers are looking for, but sWTOR spent too much money to give up. They relied on thier IP and came up with a model that works perfectly for them. I cannot say the same for any other AAA mmo.
There is a difference between arguing games should go to a hybrid model, and arguing that they should start with one. Initially, if you think you have the audience for it, purchase plus sub with no free option is the best model. Long term, the market seems to be indicating that *all* new games are reaching the point where adding a free option and expanded cash shop improves revenue as compared to staying sub only. It appears to be the case that starting without a sub, or trying to go long term without a free option, are both sub-optimal approaches.
As for EQN and Landmark, given SOE's recent announcement that they are going to one subscription giving you full access to all of their games, that is probably the reason they weren't announced as having their own dedicated subs, it would be inconsistent with the model they are building for the company as a whole.
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.
Completely disagree. This is revisionist history. AoC, Warhammer, Rift, Aion, LoTR, Secret World and SWTOR ALL OF THEM started as P2P.
If as you suggest, it's a no brainer to go F2P, why didn't they start out as a F2P model, why did they had to switch when teh games bombed? It's because every single company PREFERS P2P. Look at the MMOS coming out soon... why is Wildstar and Elder Scrolls Online coming out as P2P? Yes, Everquest next is B2P model like GW2, but that just goes to show that "F2P" is the way to go is certainly NOT the case.
Steady, dependable subscription is what all these game makers are looking for, but sWTOR spent too much money to give up. They relied on thier IP and came up with a model that works perfectly for them. I cannot say the same for any other AAA mmo.
There is a difference between arguing games should go to a hybrid model, and arguing that they should start with one. Initially, if you think you have the audience for it, purchase plus sub with no free option is the best model. Long term, the market seems to be indicating that *all* new games are reaching the point where adding a free option and expanded cash shop improves revenue as compared to staying sub only. It appears to be the case that starting without a sub, or trying to go long term without a free option, are both sub-optimal approaches.
As for EQN and Landmark, given SOE's recent announcement that they are going to one subscription giving you full access to all of their games, that is probably the reason they weren't announced as having their own dedicated subs, it would be inconsistent with the model they are building for the company as a whole.
That doesn't make any sense though. Using your own analysis, there would be NO REASON to ever go P2P since a combination of P2P/F2P with cash shop is the "best" way to go given today's market. Using SWTOR as an example, it woudl have had to average 1 million subs to keep up with the digital revenue it receives now.
Knowing that, why are OTHER companies continuing with the P2P model? That would fly in the face of the empirical evidence that is repeatedly being cited in this thread. If it's so Obvious what the model should be, how are the professional, paid, financial analysts at Elder Scrolls and Wildstar completly "missing the point."
I'll tell you Why. Just like WoW, SWTOR is a special case. WoW works great with P2P and if it didn't, it would have been full F2P a long time ago. SWTOR ONLY works with the current model because of the IP. THAT'S IT. That is the same reason why this hybrid p2p/F2P model is not working for Rift, Aoc, Warhammer, Secret World, EQ2, LoTR, etc....
SWTOR is a unique case. SWTOR's model would not work for a game like ESO or FFXIV. These two games have a far SMALLER but very dedicated and loyal player base. These games would work much better with a 250-600k subscriber base that offers a $13-15 sub. This keeps them at a nice profit with steady income for years to come. I don't care what ESO does, whether it's B2P or F2P it's not my type of game. Free to play option will never entice me to play so it's a waste.
Basically, SWTOR is opiate for the masses. It's McDonalds. ESO and FFXIV may be In and Out or Carl's Junior. The quality of the burgers may be higher, but not as widespread. The latter two games know their player base and there is a model that suits their brand.
Yeah, I agree that what works for one game doesn't necessarily for an other.
They are all targeted at specific target audiences, thus their payment methods need to fit this specific group too.
Way too many generalizations in the thread.
One method is not better than the other in general. And it's not just one model or the other either, as shown by all the successful hybrid approaches.
And that's a good thing, devs can mix and match and get the best possible profit out of their target market. More profits mean more content and polish for the running games and higher budgets for future games.
That doesn't make any sense though. Using your own analysis, there would be NO REASON to ever go P2P since a combination of P2P/F2P with cash shop is the "best" way to go given today's market. Using SWTOR as an example, it woudl have had to average 1 million subs to keep up with the digital revenue it receives now.
Knowing that, why are OTHER companies continuing with the P2P model? That would fly in the face of the empirical evidence that is repeatedly being cited in this thread. If it's so Obvious what the model should be, how are the professional, paid, financial analysts at Elder Scrolls and Wildstar completly "missing the point."
I'll tell you Why. Just like WoW, SWTOR is a special case. WoW works great with P2P and if it didn't, it would have been full F2P a long time ago. SWTOR ONLY works with the current model because of the IP. THAT'S IT. That is the same reason why this hybrid p2p/F2P model is not working for Rift, Aoc, Warhammer, Secret World, EQ2, LoTR, etc....
SWTOR is a unique case. SWTOR's model would not work for a game like ESO or FFXIV. These two games have a far SMALLER but very dedicated and loyal player base. These games would work much better with a 250-600k subscriber base that offers a $13-15 sub. This keeps them at a nice profit with steady income for years to come. I don't care what ESO does, whether it's B2P or F2P it's not my type of game. Free to play option will never entice me to play so it's a waste.
Basically, SWTOR is opiate for the masses. It's McDonalds. ESO and FFXIV may be In and Out or Carl's Junior. The quality of the burgers may be higher, but not as widespread. The latter two games know their player base and there is a model that suits their brand.
You have no evidence that any company has a plan to start sub only, and never change their model regardless of how many subs they get. We only know that FFXIV, ESO, and Wildstar are starting with subs. We don't know what their plans are for a six months to a year down the road when subs start dropping. If one of these games defied all reasonable expectations, started pulling WoW numbers, and didn't see box sales slowing down a year out? They might decide to stay sub only. If they follow what appears to be the normal modern MMO life cycle, subscribers will be dropping like flies somewhere between the six and twelve month mark, and adding an expanded cash shop with a free option will at that point become a no brainer.
As for your claim that ESO doesn't need TOR numbers, they had better hope they get them, since their budget is reportedly the same size. And to close out, a question: what is your evidence that the hybrid model isn't working for any of the other games you list?
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.
You have no evidence that any company has a plan to start sub only, and never change their model regardless of how many subs they get. We only know that FFXIV, ESO, and Wildstar are starting with subs. We don't know what their plans are for a six months to a year down the road when subs start dropping. If one of these games defied all reasonable expectations, started pulling WoW numbers, and didn't see box sales slowing down a year out? They might decide to stay sub only. If they follow what appears to be the normal modern MMO life cycle, subscribers will be dropping like flies somewhere between the six and twelve month mark, and adding an expanded cash shop with a free option will at that point become a no brainer.
As for your claim that ESO doesn't need TOR numbers, they had better hope they get them, since their budget is reportedly the same size. And to close out, a question: what is your evidence that the hybrid model isn't working for any of the other games you list?
Obviously no one knows exactly how it will go. But we can talk about reasonable expectations. It is not like that ESO & WS are pulling WoW numbers .. because nothing has done so since wow. Now i am not saying it is impossible, but given what we know about the games, it is not likely. Heck, even GW2, which has a lot of hype and sells well, was not pulling wow numbers.
And who is saying hybrid model does not work? I think the learning is that sub-ONLY models are no longer working very well. It is probably replaced by a mix of B2P, F2P, hybrid and cash shops.
That doesn't make any sense though. Using your own analysis, there would be NO REASON to ever go P2P since a combination of P2P/F2P with cash shop is the "best" way to go given today's market. Using SWTOR as an example, it woudl have had to average 1 million subs to keep up with the digital revenue it receives now.
Knowing that, why are OTHER companies continuing with the P2P model? That would fly in the face of the empirical evidence that is repeatedly being cited in this thread. If it's so Obvious what the model should be, how are the professional, paid, financial analysts at Elder Scrolls and Wildstar completly "missing the point."
I'll tell you Why. Just like WoW, SWTOR is a special case. WoW works great with P2P and if it didn't, it would have been full F2P a long time ago. SWTOR ONLY works with the current model because of the IP. THAT'S IT. That is the same reason why this hybrid p2p/F2P model is not working for Rift, Aoc, Warhammer, Secret World, EQ2, LoTR, etc....
SWTOR is a unique case. SWTOR's model would not work for a game like ESO or FFXIV. These two games have a far SMALLER but very dedicated and loyal player base. These games would work much better with a 250-600k subscriber base that offers a $13-15 sub. This keeps them at a nice profit with steady income for years to come. I don't care what ESO does, whether it's B2P or F2P it's not my type of game. Free to play option will never entice me to play so it's a waste.
Basically, SWTOR is opiate for the masses. It's McDonalds. ESO and FFXIV may be In and Out or Carl's Junior. The quality of the burgers may be higher, but not as widespread. The latter two games know their player base and there is a model that suits their brand.
You have no evidence that any company has a plan to start sub only, and never change their model regardless of how many subs they get. We only know that FFXIV, ESO, and Wildstar are starting with subs. We don't know what their plans are for a six months to a year down the road when subs start dropping. If one of these games defied all reasonable expectations, started pulling WoW numbers, and didn't see box sales slowing down a year out? They might decide to stay sub only. If they follow what appears to be the normal modern MMO life cycle, subscribers will be dropping like flies somewhere between the six and twelve month mark, and adding an expanded cash shop with a free option will at that point become a no brainer.
As for your claim that ESO doesn't need TOR numbers, they had better hope they get them, since their budget is reportedly the same size. And to close out, a question: what is your evidence that the hybrid model isn't working for any of the other games you list?
LEt me rephrase...
"If the hybrid money is the one that brings in the most money, and allows a game to continue far longer than a failed P2P model, why don't all of these new companies start with the hybrid model?"
Why do they have to go through the stigma of "failing" for them to change their model, which as you say, is a far more profitable option? Please explain that to me? I know that a company has contingency plans, but why would they start with their "worst" option to begin with? If Hybrid is the "BEST" model, why does it require a failure before it is instituted?
The reason that companies start with P2P is because that is the PREFERED model. It's a best model if they can sustain it. Which means, hybrid is the second best model and one that only works once the game has already failed.
That's my issue with this whole 22 page thread. People come in here saying HYBRD is the BEST! No it's not, it's the best option for an mmo that has already failed. That's a big difference in looking at hybrid models.
PS - How does your analysis of the P2P model change when it comes to Blizzard and SquareEnix. They are the only two publishers who don't rely on outside investment. They do not need to turn a profit within 6 months of release. They self-fund the entire project. Maybe that should also factor into your analysis on which model is best.
In the top 10 money making games (and most listed here on MMORPG.com), all but ONE is sub-only (WOW).
And wow is only #7, and making less than half compared to LoL.
This pretty much shows that to make money, F2P beats P2P, and often you don't even need a virtual world.
Of course F2P will more then likely make more money, why? Becuase they nickle and dime you to death thus adding up quickly. You want to press the play button? Thatll be 5 dollars. You want to create an additional character? Thatll be 10 dollars. You want to accept that quest? Thatll be 5 dollars. You want to loot that item or use an item? Thatll be 5 dollars. MMOs or any RPG is built on the idea that we go after loot/items/appearance stuff therefor theres a supply and demand for it and developers know they can charge for it. If someone really wants an item but has to pay for it, they will simply because its there but only for a price.
I personally hate Free to play. For many reasons, 1 being the community goes to hell. Players are worse caliber, and in my opinion, the content we get is of worse quality(Rift is good but thats the only F2P game that has a decent model)
So, it shouldnt be a surprise that a f2p game will make more money. Thats simply because you have to pay for every little thing you do(minus the one game I mentioned) Its pathetic in my eyes. Total BS
In the top 10 money making games (and most listed here on MMORPG.com), all but ONE is sub-only (WOW).
And wow is only #7, and making less than half compared to LoL.
This pretty much shows that to make money, F2P beats P2P, and often you don't even need a virtual world.
Of course F2P will more then likely make more money, why? Becuase they nickle and dime you to death thus adding up quickly. You want to press the play button? Thatll be 5 dollars. You want to create an additional character? Thatll be 10 dollars. You want to accept that quest? Thatll be 5 dollars. You want to loot that item or use an item? Thatll be 5 dollars. MMOs or any RPG is built on the idea that we go after loot/items/appearance stuff therefor theres a supply and demand for it and developers know they can charge for it. If someone really wants an item but has to pay for it, they will simply because its there but only for a price.
I personally hate Free to play. For many reasons, 1 being the community goes to hell. Players are worse caliber, and in my opinion, the content we get is of worse quality(Rift is good but thats the only F2P game that has a decent model)
So, it shouldnt be a surprise that a f2p game will make more money. Thats simply because you have to pay for every little thing you do(minus the one game I mentioned) Its pathetic in my eyes. Total BS
I've played several F2P MMO's and other types of F2P games without spending a penny. If you're the type of player who has no impulse control, I can see why you'd think that you have to spend money on every little thing.
In the top 10 money making games (and most listed here on MMORPG.com), all but ONE is sub-only (WOW).
And wow is only #7, and making less than half compared to LoL.
This pretty much shows that to make money, F2P beats P2P, and often you don't even need a virtual world.
Of course F2P will more then likely make more money, why? Becuase they nickle and dime you to death thus adding up quickly. You want to press the play button? Thatll be 5 dollars. You want to create an additional character? Thatll be 10 dollars. You want to accept that quest? Thatll be 5 dollars. You want to loot that item or use an item? Thatll be 5 dollars. MMOs or any RPG is built on the idea that we go after loot/items/appearance stuff therefor theres a supply and demand for it and developers know they can charge for it. If someone really wants an item but has to pay for it, they will simply because its there but only for a price.
I personally hate Free to play. For many reasons, 1 being the community goes to hell. Players are worse caliber, and in my opinion, the content we get is of worse quality(Rift is good but thats the only F2P game that has a decent model)
So, it shouldnt be a surprise that a f2p game will make more money. Thats simply because you have to pay for every little thing you do(minus the one game I mentioned) Its pathetic in my eyes. Total BS
I've played several F2P MMO's and other types of F2P games without spending a penny. If you're the type of player who has no impulse control, I can see why you'd think that you have to spend money on every little thing.
WEll that's the whole point... you may not spend any money but the guy next to you probably spent $100 dollars that month. That count's as "success" for an mmo because it's the lowest common denomenator. The math proves it, F2P players DO NOT have self control. You're in the minority. Somehow, the lack of self-control gets confused with a "good game" or a "good business model."
I prefer the model where the company says... pay me $13-15 a month and I won't restrict what content you can do, how many action bars you can have, what race you can play, how long you can play... you have access to everything and anything the game has to offer.
So here's a question. Why are there more F2P games? Is it easier to get investment dollars for F2P games? Is it easier to setup a F2P game? Or is it that in terms of cost and benefit, F2P makes more money? Perhaps it's just that in today's market, for long term benefits, most games need to be F2P to sustain long term viability.
Completely disagree. This is revisionist history. AoC, Warhammer, Rift, Aion, LoTR, Secret World and SWTOR ALL OF THEM started as P2P.
If as you suggest, it's a no brainer to go F2P, why didn't they start out as a F2P model, why did they had to switch when teh games bombed? It's because every single company PREFERS P2P. Look at the MMOS coming out soon... why is Wildstar and Elder Scrolls Online coming out as P2P? Yes, Everquest next is B2P model like GW2, but that just goes to show that "F2P" is the way to go is certainly NOT the case.
Steady, dependable subscription is what all these game makers are looking for, but sWTOR spent too much money to give up. They relied on thier IP and came up with a model that works perfectly for them. I cannot say the same for any other AAA mmo.
I didn't say F2P is a no brainer. The post I quoted started with there being many more F2P games, so of course they generate more revenue. So the question is, why are there more F2P games? Keep in mind that the "industry" covers more than just MMORPGs. There must be some benefit.
Talking about just games that start with a sub and then go F2P are getting revenue from different parts of the gaming market. If they did not go F2P their revenues would not increase and the games would shut down. So F2P allows them to gain additional revenue that would otherwise be unavailable. That is the benefit.
So while running a subscription forever is the ideal, like many ideals it just doesn't pan out that well in the real world. That still doens't answer why F2P is such a money maker for all the other games that use it. There must be a benefit, whether it's that it's easier to attract funding, or that it's easier to run the game.
**
I get what you're saying about P2P being the preferred method. Of course it is, because it generates the most revenue and is the highest profit per player. The problem is that for all those games you listed it just didn't work. If it was the ideal method, it would still be working, and it didn't. So while P2P may be preferred, P2P followed by F2P is ideal, because it actually works.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You have no evidence that any company has a plan to start sub only, and never change their model regardless of how many subs they get. We only know that FFXIV, ESO, and Wildstar are starting with subs. We don't know what their plans are for a six months to a year down the road when subs start dropping. If one of these games defied all reasonable expectations, started pulling WoW numbers, and didn't see box sales slowing down a year out? They might decide to stay sub only. If they follow what appears to be the normal modern MMO life cycle, subscribers will be dropping like flies somewhere between the six and twelve month mark, and adding an expanded cash shop with a free option will at that point become a no brainer.
As for your claim that ESO doesn't need TOR numbers, they had better hope they get them, since their budget is reportedly the same size. And to close out, a question: what is your evidence that the hybrid model isn't working for any of the other games you list?
Obviously no one knows exactly how it will go. But we can talk about reasonable expectations. It is not like that ESO & WS are pulling WoW numbers .. because nothing has done so since wow. Now i am not saying it is impossible, but given what we know about the games, it is not likely. Heck, even GW2, which has a lot of hype and sells well, was not pulling wow numbers.
And who is saying hybrid model does not work? I think the learning is that sub-ONLY models are no longer working very well. It is probably replaced by a mix of B2P, F2P, hybrid and cash shops.
I see the re-occurring misconception here:
You extrapolate the data to see one type of business model, over another type and simply refuse to notice what the data is actually saying. I have responded to you previously & I hope that post did not go overlooked, but it is worth bring up once more so that you understand these metrics.
First is, the amount of players (per game) have zero basis on whether it is (or should be) a subscription based model, or a free to play business model. Each model is independent of user base, but directly based on the type & offering from said publisher.
Secondly, you mash all games types, and even genres together.
Thirdly, you fail to notice weighing factors, or even the demographics, but continue to steam along with opinion.. based on a single source of information.
More importantly here, you errantly mix data-sets, to include your erroneous arguments. Understand, "RTS", "MOBA", etc.. are not even the same type of customer. You ignorantly (ie: with a lack of knowledge) lump each, as a MMORPG.
Not to harp on you, but I figured I could help clear up some major misconceptions you have been apt to promote.
Comments
Or you can look at the total revenue increase year over year. You can argue if that means there are many games dying, or the same games are making more, but you can't get away from the fact that there are more money in F2P games.
The website misinterprete the data already.
They dont' know lineage actually have a subscription in many areas. So they act as the total revenue are all from micro transaction while a huge percent is actually from subscription.
They said their source are from the publisher themself. The thing is you can't even trust the publishder data. They like to boaster data to bring more hype to their game.
That being said, the topic isn't even about mmorpg. Since 2 of 4 mmorpg are actually subscription. 1 of them are freemium with a huge percent of the player actually pay subscription. So the only game left is maplestory(which I believe is the only one without subscription).
Dont' get me wrong, F2P is big. Most of the revenue from Maple Story is probably from asians. And there are a bunch of F2P games in asia that can match maple story. Unlike western publisher, asian games either go subscription or microtransaction. Very few have freemium.
I can't believe how some people arnt' making the following point.
There ARE WAY MORE F2P games on the market with micro transactions than PURE P2P games. It's easy to make 4x the amount a p2p games make when there are 10x the number of f2p games.
This is a stupid analysis.... F2P CAN BE very successful, like SWTOR. P2P can be very successful like WoW. You have to analyze EACH game by itself.
For example, let's say FFXIV has 400k subscribers. When it's all said and done, it makes a very nice profit. If the operations cost for SWTOR is 1 million (purely for example) and it makes 1 million in profit.. that's a great return on investment. If another F2P has operations cost of 500k, but only makes 600k and 100k profit.. maybe that's not so great.
However, both free to play games get into the pile and you can say, wow, those two games make 1.6 million combined!!! that must be better than P2p.
So many comaprisions between apples and oranges in this thread it's not even funny. Just because one free to play game is successful it doesn't mean that ALL f2p games are sucessful Swtor may have a better model than other f2p, and WoW clearly shows P2p is the way to go. If F2P was better, why hasn't WoW switched years ago?
Each game has it's own merits, has its own costs and has its own model. Analyze it individually.
Your point is well taken, but to be fair, when you look at the numbers from that report, every single game on the top ten list is making more from it's cash shop than any game other than WoW has *ever* made in a year from subscriptions. So, while there may be a lot of poorly implemented F2P games that make less than sub games, well done F2P appears to offer substantially higher potential revenue for new games than subscriptions alone can compete with.
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.
Free to play is the classical "Bait and switch." They bait you with "free" and then charge you an arm and a leg for really essential quality of life upgrades (inventory and action bars).
4 months ago I went back to SWTOR to check out the digital expanion, the Cartel wars or something. I had to pay a lot of credits I had accumlated to unlock action bars, inventory slots, etc. I didn't pay any money because my old account had accumlated cartle points.
However, I saw nothing that showed me the horrible game engine had changed. The game was essentially the same but not it was "free 2 play."
I'll reiterate what's been said in this thread. Mcdonalds makes more money than a chain of salad restuarants. Mcdonalds is 100x more profitable... however, profitable =/ quality.
Some companies makes the conscious decision that they are happy with a certain amount of profit without comprimising their brand name and their quality. The rehaul of FFXIV comes to mind.
F2P, especially the SWTOR model reminds me of predatory lending. It feeds off of people's base instincts and stupidity. You think you're getting a free game or at least, for a nominal fee, but if you sit down and calcualte the amount of money you put into the f2p game, on average it will be more than p2p. You have a lot of people who spend 100 bucks a month on a free2p game. That pays for 6 people who don't spend a dime for the same period.
What is shocking to me is the people defending this model as "the way to go for all MMOS." Let me ask you, are you happy with the content you get with the f2p model? 50% of the content is additional cash shop items.
Gamers should be up in arms that this model is akin to asking a fat man to eat a full cake everyday. Most people have self control, but some don't, and those that don't are skewing these numbers into thinking this is a "good" model.
I have yet to see a F2P game that offers quality and justifies staying. GW2 is the only one, but that's B2P and really doesn't offer much by way of "content."
Are you sure about that or is that a guess?
EQ at peak wasn't ludicrously far from 10 (yes it was still some way off, however that was during a time when the expected player base of the market was a fraction of what supposedly exists now, and when development costs were not as ludicrous). In over 10 years you are saying none of the AAA titles have held onto enough of the initial population to best $121m? It's possible but not something I would bet on.
I said the same thing earlier, but people are too dense to make the connections we did.
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
I've done some number crunching. the 139 million in digital sales is actually FANTASTIC. You would need to have 900k subscribers paying $13 bucks a month to equal that; however, SWTOR released a digital expansion last year (Rise of the Hut Cartel) costing $30. I would LOVE to know what thier ditial sales were in 2012.
Regardless, the microtransactions bring in 11.6 million dollars a month in revenue (not profit) which is twice as much as a game like FFXIV (which will bring in 5.2 million a month from subscriptions if they average 400k subscribers).
Here's the big elephant in the room though. Star Wars is unique because of the IP. You have a base of 1-2 million "free to play" players that can buy the digital expansion or buy from the cash shop at any moment. you also have people who don't spend a dime in F2P arguing "IT's great... I don't spend a penny!" Well, you also have Mr. $150 dollars a month in cartel points that pas for 9 others who havn't bought anything.
Long story short, this model works exceptionally well with SWTOR due to the IP. How's this working out for Rift? LotR? Perfect World? Warhammer? AoC? Not very good.
So with a company like FFXIV, do you want 5.2 million in steady, revenue with a loyal (and smaller fan base than SWTOR) to keep a game going... or do you want a F2P market where your IP cannot sustain the same as SWTOR (with movies, toys, cartoons, books etc).
SWTOR =/ that all MMOS should be F2P.
Wow =/ that all MMOS should be P2P.
As said earlier, this is a case by case basis. Stop arguing one over the other.
PS: My preference is P2P with cosmetic cash shop items like Wow. then you get the best of both worlds. A steady subscription stream with spikes in profit from the cash shop. However, I would venture to guess WoW subscription revnue is considerably higher than it's digital downloads.
I think FFXIV will do the same. It's already been confirmed that cosmetic changes will be added to the FFXIV cash shop very soon, like paid name changes, server transfers, character race changes, etc.
I am sure about it for the last few years, since WoW has been the only game any time recently to have enough subs to make more on them than the lowest game in that list made on it's cash shop. "Ever" was a guess. I haven't actually checked to see whether EQ's numbers were high enough at some point in the earlier days to beat the lowest game on the list..
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.
Well, for one, it's an industry analysis, not an individual game analysis. No developer, F2P, P2P, digital sales or not is going to allow that kind of information to be released about an individual game. As an industry analysis, it is correct. F2P is making more money.
So here's a question. Why are there more F2P games? Is it easier to get investment dollars for F2P games? Is it easier to setup a F2P game? Or is it that in terms of cost and benefit, F2P makes more money? Perhaps it's just that in today's market, for long term benefits, most games need to be F2P to sustain long term viability.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Completely disagree. This is revisionist history. AoC, Warhammer, Rift, Aion, LoTR, Secret World and SWTOR ALL OF THEM started as P2P.
If as you suggest, it's a no brainer to go F2P, why didn't they start out as a F2P model, why did they had to switch when teh games bombed? It's because every single company PREFERS P2P. Look at the MMOS coming out soon... why is Wildstar and Elder Scrolls Online coming out as P2P? Yes, Everquest next is B2P model like GW2, but that just goes to show that "F2P" is the way to go is certainly NOT the case.
Steady, dependable subscription is what all these game makers are looking for, but sWTOR spent too much money to give up. They relied on thier IP and came up with a model that works perfectly for them. I cannot say the same for any other AAA mmo.
There is a difference between arguing games should go to a hybrid model, and arguing that they should start with one. Initially, if you think you have the audience for it, purchase plus sub with no free option is the best model. Long term, the market seems to be indicating that *all* new games are reaching the point where adding a free option and expanded cash shop improves revenue as compared to staying sub only. It appears to be the case that starting without a sub, or trying to go long term without a free option, are both sub-optimal approaches.
As for EQN and Landmark, given SOE's recent announcement that they are going to one subscription giving you full access to all of their games, that is probably the reason they weren't announced as having their own dedicated subs, it would be inconsistent with the model they are building for the company as a whole.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
That doesn't make any sense though. Using your own analysis, there would be NO REASON to ever go P2P since a combination of P2P/F2P with cash shop is the "best" way to go given today's market. Using SWTOR as an example, it woudl have had to average 1 million subs to keep up with the digital revenue it receives now.
Knowing that, why are OTHER companies continuing with the P2P model? That would fly in the face of the empirical evidence that is repeatedly being cited in this thread. If it's so Obvious what the model should be, how are the professional, paid, financial analysts at Elder Scrolls and Wildstar completly "missing the point."
I'll tell you Why. Just like WoW, SWTOR is a special case. WoW works great with P2P and if it didn't, it would have been full F2P a long time ago. SWTOR ONLY works with the current model because of the IP. THAT'S IT. That is the same reason why this hybrid p2p/F2P model is not working for Rift, Aoc, Warhammer, Secret World, EQ2, LoTR, etc....
SWTOR is a unique case. SWTOR's model would not work for a game like ESO or FFXIV. These two games have a far SMALLER but very dedicated and loyal player base. These games would work much better with a 250-600k subscriber base that offers a $13-15 sub. This keeps them at a nice profit with steady income for years to come. I don't care what ESO does, whether it's B2P or F2P it's not my type of game. Free to play option will never entice me to play so it's a waste.
Basically, SWTOR is opiate for the masses. It's McDonalds. ESO and FFXIV may be In and Out or Carl's Junior. The quality of the burgers may be higher, but not as widespread. The latter two games know their player base and there is a model that suits their brand.
Yeah, I agree that what works for one game doesn't necessarily for an other.
They are all targeted at specific target audiences, thus their payment methods need to fit this specific group too.
Way too many generalizations in the thread.
One method is not better than the other in general. And it's not just one model or the other either, as shown by all the successful hybrid approaches.
And that's a good thing, devs can mix and match and get the best possible profit out of their target market. More profits mean more content and polish for the running games and higher budgets for future games.
You have no evidence that any company has a plan to start sub only, and never change their model regardless of how many subs they get. We only know that FFXIV, ESO, and Wildstar are starting with subs. We don't know what their plans are for a six months to a year down the road when subs start dropping. If one of these games defied all reasonable expectations, started pulling WoW numbers, and didn't see box sales slowing down a year out? They might decide to stay sub only. If they follow what appears to be the normal modern MMO life cycle, subscribers will be dropping like flies somewhere between the six and twelve month mark, and adding an expanded cash shop with a free option will at that point become a no brainer.
As for your claim that ESO doesn't need TOR numbers, they had better hope they get them, since their budget is reportedly the same size. And to close out, a question: what is your evidence that the hybrid model isn't working for any of the other games you list?
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.
Obviously no one knows exactly how it will go. But we can talk about reasonable expectations. It is not like that ESO & WS are pulling WoW numbers .. because nothing has done so since wow. Now i am not saying it is impossible, but given what we know about the games, it is not likely. Heck, even GW2, which has a lot of hype and sells well, was not pulling wow numbers.
And who is saying hybrid model does not work? I think the learning is that sub-ONLY models are no longer working very well. It is probably replaced by a mix of B2P, F2P, hybrid and cash shops.
LEt me rephrase...
"If the hybrid money is the one that brings in the most money, and allows a game to continue far longer than a failed P2P model, why don't all of these new companies start with the hybrid model?"
Why do they have to go through the stigma of "failing" for them to change their model, which as you say, is a far more profitable option? Please explain that to me? I know that a company has contingency plans, but why would they start with their "worst" option to begin with? If Hybrid is the "BEST" model, why does it require a failure before it is instituted?
The reason that companies start with P2P is because that is the PREFERED model. It's a best model if they can sustain it. Which means, hybrid is the second best model and one that only works once the game has already failed.
That's my issue with this whole 22 page thread. People come in here saying HYBRD is the BEST! No it's not, it's the best option for an mmo that has already failed. That's a big difference in looking at hybrid models.
PS - How does your analysis of the P2P model change when it comes to Blizzard and SquareEnix. They are the only two publishers who don't rely on outside investment. They do not need to turn a profit within 6 months of release. They self-fund the entire project. Maybe that should also factor into your analysis on which model is best.
Of course F2P will more then likely make more money, why? Becuase they nickle and dime you to death thus adding up quickly. You want to press the play button? Thatll be 5 dollars. You want to create an additional character? Thatll be 10 dollars. You want to accept that quest? Thatll be 5 dollars. You want to loot that item or use an item? Thatll be 5 dollars. MMOs or any RPG is built on the idea that we go after loot/items/appearance stuff therefor theres a supply and demand for it and developers know they can charge for it. If someone really wants an item but has to pay for it, they will simply because its there but only for a price.
I personally hate Free to play. For many reasons, 1 being the community goes to hell. Players are worse caliber, and in my opinion, the content we get is of worse quality(Rift is good but thats the only F2P game that has a decent model)
So, it shouldnt be a surprise that a f2p game will make more money. Thats simply because you have to pay for every little thing you do(minus the one game I mentioned) Its pathetic in my eyes. Total BS
I've played several F2P MMO's and other types of F2P games without spending a penny. If you're the type of player who has no impulse control, I can see why you'd think that you have to spend money on every little thing.
WEll that's the whole point... you may not spend any money but the guy next to you probably spent $100 dollars that month. That count's as "success" for an mmo because it's the lowest common denomenator. The math proves it, F2P players DO NOT have self control. You're in the minority. Somehow, the lack of self-control gets confused with a "good game" or a "good business model."
I prefer the model where the company says... pay me $13-15 a month and I won't restrict what content you can do, how many action bars you can have, what race you can play, how long you can play... you have access to everything and anything the game has to offer.
Yeah I made the same connection and noted it briefly in my response. I think people are more interested in the controversy.
I didn't say F2P is a no brainer. The post I quoted started with there being many more F2P games, so of course they generate more revenue. So the question is, why are there more F2P games? Keep in mind that the "industry" covers more than just MMORPGs. There must be some benefit.
Talking about just games that start with a sub and then go F2P are getting revenue from different parts of the gaming market. If they did not go F2P their revenues would not increase and the games would shut down. So F2P allows them to gain additional revenue that would otherwise be unavailable. That is the benefit.
So while running a subscription forever is the ideal, like many ideals it just doesn't pan out that well in the real world. That still doens't answer why F2P is such a money maker for all the other games that use it. There must be a benefit, whether it's that it's easier to attract funding, or that it's easier to run the game.
**
I get what you're saying about P2P being the preferred method. Of course it is, because it generates the most revenue and is the highest profit per player. The problem is that for all those games you listed it just didn't work. If it was the ideal method, it would still be working, and it didn't. So while P2P may be preferred, P2P followed by F2P is ideal, because it actually works.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
how nice we are comparing apples with oranges and trowing some bananas in the mix.
This still means absolutely nothin becaus the apples have games with subs and the other category's do not.
total bullshit comparison.
I see the re-occurring misconception here:
You extrapolate the data to see one type of business model, over another type and simply refuse to notice what the data is actually saying. I have responded to you previously & I hope that post did not go overlooked, but it is worth bring up once more so that you understand these metrics.
First is, the amount of players (per game) have zero basis on whether it is (or should be) a subscription based model, or a free to play business model. Each model is independent of user base, but directly based on the type & offering from said publisher.
Secondly, you mash all games types, and even genres together.
Thirdly, you fail to notice weighing factors, or even the demographics, but continue to steam along with opinion.. based on a single source of information.
More importantly here, you errantly mix data-sets, to include your erroneous arguments. Understand, "RTS", "MOBA", etc.. are not even the same type of customer. You ignorantly (ie: with a lack of knowledge) lump each, as a MMORPG.
Not to harp on you, but I figured I could help clear up some major misconceptions you have been apt to promote.