I know that I personally have no problems dropping a F2P game at any point that I'm even slightly dissatisfied with it. No sub, no investment... the day I'm bored is that day I find something else to do.
The companies all wanted to move to a quick cash grab system and what they're ending up with is a transient player base that couldn't care less about their game a couple months after it drops.
F2P and Day 1 DLC are ebola and need to be eradicated, but sheeple just keep putting up with this crap, and eventually they'll be paying by the bullet they shoot in Call of Dooty 15.
FE is one of the most F2P games you will find and it is still my main game 3 years later.
Not invested in it? I love it!
Too bad you can't find something that floats your boat as well, but my guess is, you are too busy informing others of the dangers of F2P. One might even suggest you are an anti F2P sheeple! Baaaa ... all F2P are baaaaaaad!!!!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I'm a bit suspect of what that 6% number really means. If you have 100 f2p games, and only 5 out of those 100 f2p games are actually good games, you might have something like 50% retention for the good f2p games while the bad f2p games might have 2% retention creating an average of 6% retention rate (not actual math results here, but just an example).
The entry barrier into f2p games is virtually non-existent. Just the time it takes to download. If the game isn't really that good, then the exit barrier is also non-existent. But with subscriptions, players may stick with it longer, even if it is a poor game, in an attempt to get their money's worth out of it.
From my experience, most players don't stick around after 3 months at best. I will bet 90% are gone by then.
But I will admit there are a few decent ones out there, the problem is there are so many bad ones it is hard to find the good ones and you can forget the open pvp ones.
I'm a bit suspect of what that 6% number really means. If you have 100 f2p games, and only 5 out of those 100 f2p games are actually good games, you might have something like 50% retention for the good f2p games while the bad f2p games might have 2% retention creating an average of 6% retention rate (not actual math results here, but just an example).
The entry barrier into f2p games is virtually non-existent. Just the time it takes to download. If the game isn't really that good, then the exit barrier is also non-existent. But with subscriptions, players may stick with it longer, even if it is a poor game, in an attempt to get their money's worth out of it.
And how many times on these forums have we heard someone say:
"Bought the game and it sucks. After my free month is up, I am done! "
Seriously, how many times??
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I'm a bit suspect of what that 6% number really means. If you have 100 f2p games, and only 5 out of those 100 f2p games are actually good games, you might have something like 50% retention for the good f2p games while the bad f2p games might have 2% retention creating an average of 6% retention rate (not actual math results here, but just an example).
The entry barrier into f2p games is virtually non-existent. Just the time it takes to download. If the game isn't really that good, then the exit barrier is also non-existent. But with subscriptions, players may stick with it longer, even if it is a poor game, in an attempt to get their money's worth out of it.
And how many times on these forums have we heard someone say:
"Bought the game and it sucks. After my free month is up, I am done! "
Seriously, how many times??
Well that is strictly your opinion. My experience is that games with subscription options tend to keep players in game much longer. They also tend to have far more content than most f2p games which also tends to keep people around.
I'm a bit suspect of what that 6% number really means. If you have 100 f2p games, and only 5 out of those 100 f2p games are actually good games, you might have something like 50% retention for the good f2p games while the bad f2p games might have 2% retention creating an average of 6% retention rate (not actual math results here, but just an example).
The entry barrier into f2p games is virtually non-existent. Just the time it takes to download. If the game isn't really that good, then the exit barrier is also non-existent. But with subscriptions, players may stick with it longer, even if it is a poor game, in an attempt to get their money's worth out of it.
And how many times on these forums have we heard someone say:
"Bought the game and it sucks. After my free month is up, I am done! "
Seriously, how many times??
Well that is strictly your opinion. My experience is that games with subscription options tend to keep players in game much longer. They also tend to have far more content than most f2p games which also tends to keep people around.
What one? older sub game do have most content then some f2p, but new sub games didn't have the all the content it needed to keep people end up going back to there older sub base game with more content cuz of the age.
I wish superdata wouldn't lump everything into their MMO category. Moba and world of tank population is far greater than mmorpg's so its impossible to draw any conclusions how f2p works for mmorpg's.
To make their numbers even more of a mess, they count swtor, tera, lotro and rift as P2P games, while counting gw2 as f2p.
Superdata is beyond a mess, I'm surprised this site is even using their name let alone their "data". These guys couldn't classify colours let alone video games.
For shame, mmorpg.com.
When you list Hearthstone a 1v1 digital trading card game as a MMO you lose any and all credibility.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
I wish superdata wouldn't lump everything into their MMO category. Moba and world of tank population is far greater than mmorpg's so its impossible to draw any conclusions how f2p works for mmorpg's.
To make their numbers even more of a mess, they count swtor, tera, lotro and rift as P2P games, while counting gw2 as f2p.
Superdata is beyond a mess, I'm surprised this site is even using their name let alone their "data". These guys couldn't classify colours let alone video games.
Subscriptions strive to keep you around for years because thats how they make their money.
Numbers are fun.
What's the average length of time a player subscribes to a subscription MMO, Zewks? I'm interested in your point of comparison here.
That said, the 6% is about the most useless number to look at when assessing profitability or population unless there is absolutely no acquisition or spending beyond that initial 30-60 day mark, especially when it is working under the unsupported assumption that other business models have a far higher retention of release players at the 1-year mark.
I mean, I get that the article is just for traffic, and it's totally expected that the replies have all overlooked the massive leap in logic in favor of jumping on the F2P Hate bandwagon, but I thought there'd be at least one person that would question it.
Wow.. way to take something out of context. No where did I make any reference to one payment model being more profitable than the other. No where was anything I said something that needed numbers to back my statement.
A game that relies on money from how many months you subscribe for, obviously will make more money if you subscribe longer. This is irrefutable. Its like saying "if i gave you a dollar, every minute, then the more minutes that went by, the more money you would make". Its an "Errr Duh" statement.
A game that seeks to profit based on the duration you play it for, is going to strive to maximize those profits by getting you to play LONGER. Are many subscription mmo's successful with this plan? Nope. Not at all. Many fail big time. Its actually hard to keep players entertained for long periods of time. This, of course, is why many companies have switched models from subs to F2P. Not only is it less work for them to get an equal or greater amount of money from the player, but they also get it much sooner than they would with a more long term sub based game.
Ive played quite a few mmo's beyond a year. Just as examples:
Asherons Call 1 - 3 years straight
Anarchy Online - 2 years straight, and then off and on for another year.
Dark Age of Camelot - 2.5 years straight
EvE Online - 2 years
WoW - 4 years straight, with a 2 year break, and then another 2 years.
GW2 - 1.5 years
Companies CAN make a game that is fun to play for longer periods of time. It just takes effort, time, and money. Something a lot of game companies these days are very strict and limited on. Maximum profit with the minimum effort in the least amount of time seems to be the slogan of many AAA type games these days. I wouldnt expect something like that to hold my interest, for even a year.
Honestly though, why should they bother making a game thats fun and lasts a year or more when so many gamers are willing to shell out hundreds of dollars in the first 2 months for a game thats designed for instant gratification and short term longevity? From a business standpoint, they shouldnt. They are making good money now and enough players seem to be ok with it. If players werent, they wouldnt be spending the money.Then again, these are probably the same gamers who spend so much money on mobile games that allow the company to spend 44 million dollars just to hire a super model to star in their tv commercial.
I honestly believe gamers these days, the ones spending most of the money, dont realize how good games could actually be, and are setttling for what the industry says is the top of the line, AAA product. As long as that is the case, games will continue to deliever quick thrills for high prices, and not much more.
No need to get defensive, Zewks. You said the 6% for F2P was not surprising at all. Then went on to say that subscription strives to keep you around for years. If your intent was not to suggest that F2P isn't or doesn't, then that was a rather odd and random statement to make, no? Anyway, I asked you a simple question based on the comparison it appeared that you attempted to draw. If you can't answer it, that's fine.
The rest was entirely about the discussion of 6%. It's a meaningless number without any point of comparison, yet only one person so far has actually addressed that. Instead, people are planting their rallying posts around it as if it actually has any context or meaning in the article presented.
As for your gaming history that you listed, let's put that in context...
There's the the guy that drives.
There's the guy that drives and knows a lot about cars.
There's the guy that drives, knows a lot about cars and works on or with them as a job/hobby.
There's the guy that drives, knows a lot about cars, works on or with them as a job/hobby, and hangs out in SIGs, forums and real-life gatherings for cars.
Do you think that last guy is any indication of the average guy that drives? If not, and I hope you're smart enough to see why not, can you see that with MMOs, that last guy is YOU? As such, isn't your MMOResume - all of ours, actually - kind of immaterial for this discussion?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Churn = player turnover. Usually expressed monthly.
Retention is usually described as 1/churn%. Monthly churn of 20%; people gone in 5 months.
Mathematically its more like compound interest - so 20% churn equates to about a 5% retention after 12 months.
We have known this for years. Zynga, Popcap, Facebook, iOS have all been putting out data and there have been lots of compilations and so forth done. It varies by platform and good games do better than poor games. What a shock.
However: this doesn't just apply to f2p games. Sub retention after 1 month - usually put at c. 40% maybe 50% in threads. After 6 months: 25% would be a good number. After a year ....well sub games lasting over a year have been thin on the ground of late so take WoW:
in 2014 WoW, at best, was running at between 6.8% and 10%. Easy calculation when you remember that WoW has sold over 100M and last year AB reported sub numbers between 6.8M and 10M.
At best. Over 100M means the % is less. And new sales will reduce the % further.2M new sales might mean a number down around 5%.
Conclusion maybe?
The business model gets us through the door. We are more likely to try a f2p game rather than spend money on a game we might not like. After some months however we get bored and we move on. Whether the game is f2p, b2p or has a sub.
This is stupid. After one year in a free to play mmo there is nothing to be done anymore, expansions tend to take too long, and the only players that stay are the ones that truly connected with the game. This is not about how players are unfaithful to the mmos they play, it's about how many of these free to play mmos fail to connect to the players enough for them to stay around. But i do also believe that when you initially pay for something, it feels harder to just let it go, and that feeling just keeps on growing as you play, and that's why so many people still play wow.
Originally posted by caiozet This is stupid. After one year in a free to play mmo there is nothing to be done anymore, expansions tend to take too long, and the only players that stay are the ones that truly connected with the game. This is not about how players are unfaithful to the mmos they play, it's about how many of these free to play mmos fail to connect to the players enough for them to stay around. But i do also believe that when you initially pay for something, it feels harder to just let it go, and that feeling just keeps on growing as you play, and that's why so many people still play wow.
You forget, sub games like Eso and wildstar failed to connect players FF14 had to stundown and remade, and still not getting close to a 1 mil players after that.
Churn = player turnover. Usually expressed monthly.
Retention is usually described as 1/churn%. Monthly churn of 20%; people gone in 5 months.
Mathematically its more like compound interest - so 20% churn equates to about a 5% retention after 12 months.
We have known this for years. Zynga, Popcap, Facebook, iOS have all been putting out data and there have been lots of compilations and so forth done. It varies by platform and good games do better than poor games. What a shock.
However: this doesn't just apply to f2p games. Sub retention after 1 month - usually put at c. 40% maybe 50% in threads. After 6 months: 25% would be a good number. After a year ....well sub games lasting over a year have been thin on the ground of late so take WoW:
in 2014 WoW, at best, was running at between 6.8% and 10%. Easy calculation when you remember that WoW has sold over 100M and last year AB reported sub numbers between 6.8M and 10M.
At best. Over 100M means the % is less. And new sales will reduce the % further.2M new sales might mean a number down around 5%.
Conclusion maybe?
The business model gets us through the door. We are more likely to try a f2p game rather than spend money on a game we might not like. After some months however we get bored and we move on. Whether the game is f2p, b2p or has a sub.
And in further breaking news ......
Excellent post!
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Subscriptions strive to keep you around for years because thats how they make their money.
Numbers are fun.
What's the average length of time a player subscribes to a subscription MMO, Zewks? I'm interested in your point of comparison here.
That said, the 6% is about the most useless number to look at when assessing profitability or population unless there is absolutely no acquisition or spending beyond that initial 30-60 day mark, especially when it is working under the unsupported assumption that other business models have a far higher retention of release players at the 1-year mark.
I mean, I get that the article is just for traffic, and it's totally expected that the replies have all overlooked the massive leap in logic in favor of jumping on the F2P Hate bandwagon, but I thought there'd be at least one person that would question it.
I agree, numbers have more value when contrasted against other numbers, like how long subed players stay on average. I've had up to eight accounts on sub games at one time, now a days I am not playing a single sub game. I'm rotating through f2p and b2p mmo's.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Subscriptions strive to keep you around for years because thats how they make their money.
F2P games want you to spend all that money right up front, so they temp you with flashy stuff to buy right now, and dont care if you are gone in under a year.
No they don't. They do the same thing month after month trying not to hemorrhage subscriptions. They are no more or no less concerned then a F2P MMO.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Subscriptions strive to keep you around for years because thats how they make their money.
Numbers are fun.
What's the average length of time a player subscribes to a subscription MMO, Zewks? I'm interested in your point of comparison here.
That said, the 6% is about the most useless number to look at when assessing profitability or population unless there is absolutely no acquisition or spending beyond that initial 30-60 day mark, especially when it is working under the unsupported assumption that other business models have a far higher retention of release players at the 1-year mark.
I mean, I get that the article is just for traffic, and it's totally expected that the replies have all overlooked the massive leap in logic in favor of jumping on the F2P Hate bandwagon, but I thought there'd be at least one person that would question it.
In summation
Profitability = Fun/Awesome Game
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
I wish superdata wouldn't lump everything into their MMO category. Moba and world of tank population is far greater than mmorpg's so its impossible to draw any conclusions how f2p works for mmorpg's.
To make their numbers even more of a mess, they count swtor, tera, lotro and rift as P2P games, while counting gw2 as f2p.
And how frequent are updates? Meaningfull updates happen from once every half a year to once every 2 years in those models, as the focus is set on the shop.
Gamers eat through the content and leave. They might return once an expansion hits, but its all too possible that by then they'll be playing something else.
Either you make it sub-based and have your team dish out frequent updates, or you find a way for players to create content for other players to consume. So either go with sub or with sandbox.
Thempark and f2p is not viable.
I would say it is not a far fetch to state that a year or even 3 years later,NOBODY in FFXI had all the content done,actually nearly impossible,even at 20 hours a day of game play.
It took most people a year to max level and do just the basic content with 2-3 classes,the game has /had 20 classes.Then there is crafting and skills to be raised.I am not stupid ,i know for FACT that a large number of players early on in those grinds cheated and i know how they did it as well.If players did not cheat the crafting alone would take years,if there was no RMT currency flowing through the world it all would take a lot longer.
That is because the game was built like a rpg,the world had no markers,you had to go home to change into new gear to play a different class,you had to figure out quests and learn your world and npc's and learn the mobs.
That is the problem not many want to play a rpg like a rpg,they want instant gratification and as fast as possible,what they really want is an arcade game not a rpg.
As to the 6% i feel it is MUCH lower,i know because i have played those games at launch and went back,hardly anyone at all is there anymore,i would say more like 1% if that.
Remember SRO,it had like 50 servers,i think it ended up around 6 dead ones nobody playing by the end.Runes of Magic had players everywhere by the end lucky to see a single player.Let me think of some other's,Well EQ2 quite a bustling game died right out,then the f2p boosted it again for about a year,then it died right out again.Wiz101 you could have full friends list yes your kids and family as well,then check all those accounts later and you will be lucky to see 1 person online.
I would say if that 6% had any merit it would be skewed by a few games large numbers and not over a long period of time.Example i could skew numbers as well by stating that FFXIV had around 50k now has around a million so then i could say subscription based has gone up 500%.
Numbers NEVER mean anything even in subscriptions because what i have seen is a lot of players just "hang onto accounts",they play them very little if at all.I would not call it enjoying a game or playing it if al lyou do is login to do a instance run then logoff again,that sounds like a 9-5 job more than fun gaming.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
No matter the payment model, the thing that keeps me (and most imho) is content and fun. Almost all F2P games just don't put out content, or the content they do put out is repetative with nothing new. Instead F2P games spend a bulk of their resources on making fluffy bunny ears and kitty pets for you to buy at the cash shop.
P2P games have to put out more content to keep players subscribed, and the content has to be good or they simply don't get paid.
When you wake up to find you have paid 3 years worth of sub fees for a ftp game in less than two months for items you would get for effort in a sub game. Things get less fun. When you calculate real money into endgame gear..things look less fun. When you spend more on a free-to-play game than groceries...less(to no) fun.
Originally posted by TheRabidsmurf When you wake up to find you have paid 3 years worth of sub fees for a ftp game in less than two months for items you would get for effort in a sub game. Things get less fun. When you calculate real money into endgame gear..things look less fun. When you spend more on a free-to-play game than groceries...less(to no)
I have recently come to the conclusion that it is better to play a wide array of existing MMO's that have years behind them than to jump from game to game as they are released. With F2P it is possible to play dozens of different MMO's concurrently, so many that there is not enough time to experience/complete everything or even keep up with the pace of content. These games are so extensive with so much content that they deserve more attention than they get. Even time and technology will not diminish content, story and memories. Even if you abandon a game a few months after launch that does not mean you unlearn it or forget it completely. There may also be a limit to how many "new" mmo's seasoned gamers are willing to invest time and money into.
I predict that we are at the height of the this MMO era. The market has become so saturated with games that there is not enough people to play them. It may be more profitable to continue development of existing products than making massive investments in new games.
Comments
FE is one of the most F2P games you will find and it is still my main game 3 years later.
Not invested in it? I love it!
Too bad you can't find something that floats your boat as well, but my guess is, you are too busy informing others of the dangers of F2P. One might even suggest you are an anti F2P sheeple! Baaaa ... all F2P are baaaaaaad!!!!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I'm a bit suspect of what that 6% number really means. If you have 100 f2p games, and only 5 out of those 100 f2p games are actually good games, you might have something like 50% retention for the good f2p games while the bad f2p games might have 2% retention creating an average of 6% retention rate (not actual math results here, but just an example).
The entry barrier into f2p games is virtually non-existent. Just the time it takes to download. If the game isn't really that good, then the exit barrier is also non-existent. But with subscriptions, players may stick with it longer, even if it is a poor game, in an attempt to get their money's worth out of it.
From my experience, most players don't stick around after 3 months at best. I will bet 90% are gone by then.
But I will admit there are a few decent ones out there, the problem is there are so many bad ones it is hard to find the good ones and you can forget the open pvp ones.
And how many times on these forums have we heard someone say:
"Bought the game and it sucks. After my free month is up, I am done! "
Seriously, how many times??
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Well that is strictly your opinion. My experience is that games with subscription options tend to keep players in game much longer. They also tend to have far more content than most f2p games which also tends to keep people around.
not nearly as many that complain about f2ps.
What one? older sub game do have most content then some f2p, but new sub games didn't have the all the content it needed to keep people end up going back to there older sub base game with more content cuz of the age.
When you list Hearthstone a 1v1 digital trading card game as a MMO you lose any and all credibility.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Yeh, then there is that...
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
No need to get defensive, Zewks. You said the 6% for F2P was not surprising at all. Then went on to say that subscription strives to keep you around for years. If your intent was not to suggest that F2P isn't or doesn't, then that was a rather odd and random statement to make, no? Anyway, I asked you a simple question based on the comparison it appeared that you attempted to draw. If you can't answer it, that's fine.
The rest was entirely about the discussion of 6%. It's a meaningless number without any point of comparison, yet only one person so far has actually addressed that. Instead, people are planting their rallying posts around it as if it actually has any context or meaning in the article presented.
As for your gaming history that you listed, let's put that in context...
Do you think that last guy is any indication of the average guy that drives? If not, and I hope you're smart enough to see why not, can you see that with MMOs, that last guy is YOU? As such, isn't your MMOResume - all of ours, actually - kind of immaterial for this discussion?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
This is not news.
Churn = player turnover. Usually expressed monthly.
Retention is usually described as 1/churn%. Monthly churn of 20%; people gone in 5 months.
Mathematically its more like compound interest - so 20% churn equates to about a 5% retention after 12 months.
We have known this for years. Zynga, Popcap, Facebook, iOS have all been putting out data and there have been lots of compilations and so forth done. It varies by platform and good games do better than poor games. What a shock.
However: this doesn't just apply to f2p games. Sub retention after 1 month - usually put at c. 40% maybe 50% in threads. After 6 months: 25% would be a good number. After a year ....well sub games lasting over a year have been thin on the ground of late so take WoW:
This is not about how players are unfaithful to the mmos they play, it's about how many of these free to play mmos fail to connect to the players enough for them to stay around. But i do also believe that when you initially pay for something, it feels harder to just let it go, and that feeling just keeps on growing as you play, and that's why so many people still play wow.
You forget, sub games like Eso and wildstar failed to connect players FF14 had to stundown and remade, and still not getting close to a 1 mil players after that.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Superdata......um....yeah
/smh
I agree, numbers have more value when contrasted against other numbers, like how long subed players stay on average. I've had up to eight accounts on sub games at one time, now a days I am not playing a single sub game. I'm rotating through f2p and b2p mmo's.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
No they don't. They do the same thing month after month trying not to hemorrhage subscriptions. They are no more or no less concerned then a F2P MMO.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
In summation
Profitability = Fun/Awesome Game
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
^ This. And more of ^ this.
This data is flawed.
I would say it is not a far fetch to state that a year or even 3 years later,NOBODY in FFXI had all the content done,actually nearly impossible,even at 20 hours a day of game play.
It took most people a year to max level and do just the basic content with 2-3 classes,the game has /had 20 classes.Then there is crafting and skills to be raised.I am not stupid ,i know for FACT that a large number of players early on in those grinds cheated and i know how they did it as well.If players did not cheat the crafting alone would take years,if there was no RMT currency flowing through the world it all would take a lot longer.
That is because the game was built like a rpg,the world had no markers,you had to go home to change into new gear to play a different class,you had to figure out quests and learn your world and npc's and learn the mobs.
That is the problem not many want to play a rpg like a rpg,they want instant gratification and as fast as possible,what they really want is an arcade game not a rpg.
As to the 6% i feel it is MUCH lower,i know because i have played those games at launch and went back,hardly anyone at all is there anymore,i would say more like 1% if that.
Remember SRO,it had like 50 servers,i think it ended up around 6 dead ones nobody playing by the end.Runes of Magic had players everywhere by the end lucky to see a single player.Let me think of some other's,Well EQ2 quite a bustling game died right out,then the f2p boosted it again for about a year,then it died right out again.Wiz101 you could have full friends list yes your kids and family as well,then check all those accounts later and you will be lucky to see 1 person online.
I would say if that 6% had any merit it would be skewed by a few games large numbers and not over a long period of time.Example i could skew numbers as well by stating that FFXIV had around 50k now has around a million so then i could say subscription based has gone up 500%.
Numbers NEVER mean anything even in subscriptions because what i have seen is a lot of players just "hang onto accounts",they play them very little if at all.I would not call it enjoying a game or playing it if al lyou do is login to do a instance run then logoff again,that sounds like a 9-5 job more than fun gaming.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
No matter the payment model, the thing that keeps me (and most imho) is content and fun. Almost all F2P games just don't put out content, or the content they do put out is repetative with nothing new. Instead F2P games spend a bulk of their resources on making fluffy bunny ears and kitty pets for you to buy at the cash shop.
P2P games have to put out more content to keep players subscribed, and the content has to be good or they simply don't get paid.
I have recently come to the conclusion that it is better to play a wide array of existing MMO's that have years behind them than to jump from game to game as they are released. With F2P it is possible to play dozens of different MMO's concurrently, so many that there is not enough time to experience/complete everything or even keep up with the pace of content. These games are so extensive with so much content that they deserve more attention than they get. Even time and technology will not diminish content, story and memories. Even if you abandon a game a few months after launch that does not mean you unlearn it or forget it completely. There may also be a limit to how many "new" mmo's seasoned gamers are willing to invest time and money into.
I predict that we are at the height of the this MMO era. The market has become so saturated with games that there is not enough people to play them. It may be more profitable to continue development of existing products than making massive investments in new games.