What really must happen is Gaming companies that develop MMO's need to switch there thinking at launch.
It needs to be less about Customer Acquisition and focus more on Customer Retention, even before the game has launched. You will never get the throngs of players away from WoW, you will be able to tempt them for a month or 2 but they will run right back when a new XPAC is released. Please see WOD numbers.
Customer Retention starts with a good product. I am not saying that it needs to be 100% bug free, but you can't ship with major ones. People will find exploits as Internal Testers can't find them all and Public Beta Testers might not reveal them to you for hope to exploit in live, but it is going to be how fast you can plug those holes, and fix the issues. This is a perception issue also, some bugs are harder to track down and squish so communicate to the community and ask for help in finding them. Companies will find that players are more willing to help squish a bug then exploit it. Show that you listen and care to the player base. This leads to loyalty, as the most important concept of Customer Retention.
Loyalty is generated by everything we talked about above. A good Product, a good relationship with the player base. There is one topic we didn't touch on yet and is the most important is CSR's (Customer Service Rep's) or in most games called GM's. Getting there attention should be easy and effortless, also get rid of the power hungry dicks. Finally spell out in great detail everything they can and can't do, so it avoids the "Oh, I am sorry but I can't help you with that" emails or tickets.
Sorry for the none structured ramblings and none complete thoughts. I have been thinking about this for awhile but never put the ideas down on paper (or in a forum) until now.
1. MMORPG Design, which includes depth to characters and world.
Character Appearance Customization
Character Class, Playstyle and Customization
Interdependence to really "dig in" to the world.
More imagination in world design than just "overland" and "dungeon."
2. With F2P MUST also be "P2W Reduction Methods."
Fact is, the majority (funny it is likely right around 94% of the population) of financially situated playerbase can not afford thousands of $'s just to enjoy a game...
AND WTF is the point of playing a P2W game just to get rolled all the time?
POS rich folk can take their money and donate it to something useful (as opposed to rubbing it in everyone else's faces in a ****ing game like they do every day irl)
"P2W Reduction Methods" would allow P2W as a balanced player advantage when compared to other player advantages.
"P2W Reduction Methods" are the only proper way to implement F2P, due to the fact that a Cash Shop MUST be the primary form of income.
Those 2 points alone, would do wonders for player retention rates. The world can deny that, but it is a FACT. I think that "94% player loss rate VS real world typical financially situated" speaks volumes.
The biggest flaw in your first point is the fact that the number 1 MMO on the market right now is WOW. What is the Character customization like? How are the instances in the game? World design is limited, and finally it is a theme park so no digging in.
Your point 2 is a great personal argument for your opinion, but there is no way we can prove your numbers or theories with the information out in the world right now.
I believe it, not one f2p game I have tried that made me want to stick around. Maybe this will wise up developers...make a great MMO and we will sub and we will stay. All of you f2p people can have it.
Originally posted by zaberfangx Them 6% in wildstar not even a free to play game, I'm pretty sure there doing very well to stay profitable.
Any how there noting wrong with free to play,b2p, or sub games, just people forget that there a business they need to show there making money, or people will not invest in them then makes it harder to get the funds to bring in more and faster content.
Even if people don't like how there targeting people wallet, they have to or be bad for business.
Played several games with sub and i stop playing because of botters gold farmers and cheaters.
Ive tried free2play which means FREE TWO PLAY in all the years im playing mmo's only money i spent was my monthly sub but those games(well not games but gamers who played it) RUINED it for me and because i stand by my principals i quit playing mmo's(mainly sandbox) and only play solo games.
For some nostalgia i bought for 8 euros Asheron's call 2 which is now free2 play and is exactly like it was in the old days no cashshop or nonsens like that.
I refuse paying for free2play period.
If a mmo was released where gold farmers botters and cheaters where 100% absent i would pay 25 bucks a months to play this mmo(must be sandbox with open pvp) but developers are not capable of stopping this.
Solo games not bothered with annoying players and cheaters gold sellers botters its heaven.
The Witcher 3 with FREE DLC already bought the game thats my gaming future screw the mmo's.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77 CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now)) MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB PSU:Corsair AX1200i OS:Windows 10 64bit
You see this more often because there is no barrier to entry to play a F2P game.
B2P cost something so more people are going to read reviews etc... and make an educated purchase.
F2P games you can try on a whim, and many people do. So you get people who go in thinking "this probably sucks, but what the hell I'll give it a try", where with B2P games they aren't very likely to plunk down the dollars if they aren't confident in the game.
So when you have people that are just there to give it a quick try on their main games maintenance day or whatever, they are obviously not interested in sticking around from the get go.
If you want to do a meaningful comparison you would have to compare the subset of players of F2P games that go in educated with the mind set of sticking around, to the B2P players.
Also their are far more crappy F2P games than there are crappy B2P games(hell there are more crappy F2P games than there are total B2P games) So that also skews the number.
Thad doesn't mean there aren't great F2P games, it just means the numbers don't line up because you are comparing apples to oranges.(and to make things worse, you have 200 apples and only 20 oranges to base your faulty comparison on)
yet so called f2p games make ton of money..according to superdata, last year they published data for most profitable mmos in the market which was:((google the source yourself))
1.wow
2.lineage 1
3.tera
4.swtor
5.lotro
guess what.. 4 out of 5 are free to play..yep that is right and also ESO went b2p with cash shop..
so i think that 6% are totally enough to make these games very profitable.
So you are going to leave out the fact that LoTRO and TOR also have subscriptions? I think TERA does too but I dont know for sure. A large chunk of their money comes from subs. ESO is going b2p but they are also keeping the subscription as an option.
Having all game features free and available to them at no cost.
Being on a superior footing to subscribe or paying customers.
Every thing they are not entitled to.
They see the phrase “Free to play”, as a binding contract of their own interpretation between them and the developers.
What does the paying public want?
No P4F gamers in their games.
Freedom to spend their money as they see fit, on what they want.
Not having to pay for P4F gamers.
Why is retention so low? They are driven away by the P4F community. The P4F community is attacking the paying customers, as if any game could exist with out being payed for.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The word you are looking for is "churn" mmos are all about player churn, not so much retention in the long term but replacing the players that leave with new or returning players.
As such your Data is incomplete while its true that most mmos lose players, what you do not address is returning players and new players, most MMOs especially free to play ones are all about keeping players cycling in, it doesnt matter if you lose a large portion of your initial playerbase, if you replace them in the medium term.
The number of players who dip in and out of mmos is staggering, with only 3 really "big" subscription games the free to play games and b2p games represent a cyclic style of gaming which a large portion of mmo players seem to fall into. If your current game needs new content to keep you interested try another, and thats what a lot of people, including my self do. MMO devs rely on this much more than the few who drop the big chips, its the many who regularly come back that also prop up their bottom line.
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.
Or, another way of reading it is this:
Knowing that F2P benefits from selling you lots of things quickly at once, and not by keeping you around for a year or more, its not surprising that F2P games only retain 6% of their player base after a year.
Its like someone posting a new article stating "Monster Trucks consume a lot more gas" and then me saying "Thats not surprising. Economy cars are designed for better miles per gallon, monster trucks are designed for power and noise" . The point of mentioning the subscription mmorpgs was a comparison. I know the gut reaction is to immediately think "2 different things on the internet, its gotta be a post saying one is better than the other" but in this case, it was in no way such a thing. It was there for perspective, showing 2 totally different and unique payment models in relation to the news posted by this site.
I believe most people only think GW2 or TERA or RIFT when they think F2P MMOs, but the reality is that the vvvaaaaaaasssstttt majority of F2P games are asian or asian-inspired games.
Someone here had an amazingly good post once about Neverwinter, and why the population there mostly rotates. 99% of F2P games play in the same manner:
1). First hours either grab you or don't
2). If the first hours are good enough, you move on to working through the leveling game, until either PvE or PvP gets competitive
3). You engage the "Cash-shop" super-boss
4). You are either entirely put off by how OP the super-boss is, and leave right away, or you try using $$$ to battle it
5). You realize that either crazy spenders OR (most often) exploiters have already defeated the "Cash-shop" super-boss and made it their bitch
6). At this point, the vast majority of players just say "**** this, moving on"; the ones that remain are those mentioned above, who have defeated the "Cash-shop" boss
I have exited games on all the above points (even reaching the winners against the "Cash-shop" super-boss)...and 100% believe this is why F2P games end up how they end up most of the time.
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.
Or, another way of reading it is this:
Knowing that F2P benefits from selling you lots of things quickly at once, and not by keeping you around for a year or more, its not surprising that F2P games only retain 6% of their player base after a year.
Its like someone posting a new article stating "Monster Trucks consume a lot more gas" and then me saying "Thats not surprising. Economy cars are designed for better miles per gallon, monster trucks are designed for power and noise" . The point of mentioning the subscription mmorpgs was a comparison. I know the gut reaction is to immediately think "2 different things on the internet, its gotta be a post saying one is better than the other" but in this case, it was in no way such a thing. It was there for perspective, showing 2 totally different and unique payment models in relation to the news posted by this site.
And, again, you've made gross assumptions there.
First off, F2P doesn't sell "lots of things quickly at once" to most users. Most users don't buy in until after 1-3 months. Retention is important. In a way, it's more important than subscription games during that 30-60 day period, as in the first 30 days of a user's lifecycle, the subscription game makes more money, on the average, from its user since it has received both box/client sale and one or more monthly payments.
Second, your car example presents that economy cars use less gas. This is a given because we have data to support it. What you are suggesting is that it is a given that subscription not only has different retention, but better retention. You seem to have trouble accepting that you are assuming this point.
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
yet so called f2p games make ton of money..according to superdata, last year they published data for most profitable mmos in the market which was:((google the source yourself))
1.wow
2.lineage 1
3.tera
4.swtor
5.lotro
guess what.. 4 out of 5 are free to play..yep that is right and also ESO went b2p with cash shop..
so i think that 6% are totally enough to make these games very profitable.
Lineage 1, REALLY? That game is dead in the US/EU and in Korea it's still a subscription game... Guess you meant Lineage II which went fully F2P worldwide with the Goddess of Destruction release. And that game lost most of it's original playerbase because of that expansion...
People check things out, spending some money. If you go to the movies and they charge you to watch per movie, you will have a much less substantial crowd than if it was free. In addition, they will want their money's worth and not want concession stands to exist as they already paid their fees and don't want in-movie stores. Naturally, the rate in which people who fall asleep or leave will be lower.
vs.
A free walk in movie with a concession stand. Nearly a hundred times more people will go to watch the movie. They will likely pass the candy store and buy all the eye candy. Statistically most will leave or fall asleep as they just wanted to check it out and they lose no money (or at least that's the mentality). Many will still likely stay -- likely the same amount if not much, much more (in terms of numbers and minus exceptional rarities like WoW... which has a F2P veteran system up to level 20) even if the rate is low like 6% as a whole. They will also like to be recognize and pay even more to be given a "Movie Vet" robe with an optional monthly rental fee.
Bad examples are bad. But I wanted to make a bad example for a silly title (that's no doubt successful in garnishing a lot of replies and looks, so kudos), irregardless of it's contents and the comments being made.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
I hate these percentages in headlines. Especially when taken out of context. We all know retention is a major difiuclty for ANY game, F2P, P2P or anything in between. Mostly because none of them (on release) have sufficient content to hold players interest for too long, plus many (specially forum dwellers) burn through content about 5 times faster than your 'average' player.
But for games that release straight up free to play sure. Especially since many of them are also straight up pay to win or you need to spend money to do anything in them. Runes of Magic, Allods, Sony Dragon one, archeage. Those come to mind as the 'top' games that were released free to play (didnt start out as something else then transition). None of those games were very good. Allods was OK but it got boring pretty fast.
But with any free to play game the feeling you 'need' to play consitently is also not there. The freedom to log in whenever you want is counter productive for a lot of people. So you play and leave and dont worry about losing anything by not playing.
But in the end it is still all about the number of people playing a game. Thats why release time (for better or worse) is still the best time to play most MMOs. because the worlds are full, there are a lot of people running around and its the best case scenario in being able to do group or at least non solo type content. Thats why many games that were actually good and decent get 'dumbed down' or simplified...because later players cant do what original players did. Also why so many have a solo feel to them. Because its necessary. People can make all the claims or denials they want but that is what its like for just about every game out there (including the almighty WoW).
Another problem I think is MMO burn out. A lot of good games people probably rotate through these days just to keep busy. Big mistake IMO. If you have to search out 10 different games to waste your time stop playing them all for awhile. Go do something else. Preferably real world stuff. Then go back and see how it is.
But the ultimate problem (coupled with the ones I mentioned) is that peoples expectations are way too high. They expect games to be released wit the same amount of content as games with 5 expansions and years of bug fixing. So new games get the hype but ultimately fail because people claim they dont have what they need. Then when the numbers drop (and dont come back even with updates and expansions) theyre listed as failures and given up on. Thats the nature of MMOs.
But a few have gotten better. Age of Conan and ESO have both improved. AoC is obviously ancient but it has improved over time, sadly no one plays it. ESO is more current and is still populated and might be the best hope for the genre (at least the quest driven subset) going forward depending on what direction they take with updates and DLCs.
But I really dont see any sort of 'destination' MMO on the horizon even with a dozen or more big name hyped ones plastered all over this site. They all look to be the ride the hype train make all their money up front and fizzle out after a few months types just like everything else has been the past decade.
Case of too many games not enough players to go around to keep the few worth playing populated enough to be 'fun' for any length of time.
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??
not nearly as many that complain about f2ps.
Righttt!!!
And that might be because there are what, a handful of P2P games out there?
I think there are good and bad to both sides. People that lump all together are just being oblivious. I look at the game first and then the payment model. Both have to be acceptable to me, but I don't discriminate, like many here do.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Originally posted by Kyleran In all fairness I haven't played a MMO created after 2004 more than 4 months, regardless of the payment model. All were bad designs in my book.
This
There is nothing wrong with the subscription model. But what developer is going to blame themselves when the "model" fails to keep players in their games? Maybe if they made a game that was geared towards retention in the 1st place?
I see this as a catch 22. The number of players who seem to want a long term game is much lower. The number of players who want the fast paced actiony stuff is a lot higher but they don't stay once the game becomes repetitive.
Why not make something like a hybrid between old and new? Clearly XL Games was onto something in tier design that players wanted. A hybrid Themepark-Sanbox system. I don't even think anyone needs to re invent the wheel here. We don't need innovation. We need systems that work and those are already out there. Just make a game that starts to transition closer to level cap. The game starts off like modern MMOs that are fun for a little while but then begins to shift and turn into what resembles the earlier generation of MMORPGs.
That kind of game would be built around the population drop, but I believe it would hit the retention curve earlier and keep more after the initial drop off. It's not like they were ever going to have more than a 6 figure population after the initial rush anyway. Might as well make them happy.
Were does this 6% come from was it throw a dart at the board or roll a dice or just pull it out of nothing there is no way that this is even remotely true the only way to get a accurate figure for a statement like OP's would be for every f2p game to release there exact monthly numbers and how long each player has stuck around and that's never going happen.
F2P works very well for a game like LOL where there's zero pay 2 win and it's a simpler game. I've thrown money at that game to buy skins or champs and felt like it was a worthy thing and that I wasn't cheating.
F2P in MMORPGs far too often involves pay 2 win and there's no enjoyment for normal people in playing games where you pay to cheat or are surrounded by blatant cheaters.
The games that let you pay cash for game gold IN the game (WildStar, EVE, GW2, Rift, etc) are even worse - that's completely blatant built-in cheating.
A lot of F2P is companies realizing there are lots of (crappy IMO) players who'd rather buy their way thru games or cheat at games than actually play them and they're catering to those people. It's garbage.
The other element is, and I'll continue to go on about this forever, is that MMORPG game when it's good is niche. REAL MMORPG gameplay is about grouping, challenge, and danger - and that is something that is less appealing to casuals and not something that works for solo.
As long as companies keep putting out what are essentially generic single player games with little challenge and no point in existing (since real single player games tend to do single player experiences far better) then what is the point? You're not going to get casual soloists heavily invested and sticking around for utterly genreic gaming even when it's designed FOR THEM.
Way more games are online now. There's way more competition for retaining online gamers. MMORPGs would be better served by focusing and doing what they do best (and what no other genre does at ll) - the grouping stuff- and being content with smaller numbers of dedicated players and stop trying to be everything to everybody and doing a poor job of it.
LOTS of genres do PvP better than MMORPGs. MMORPGs are PvE/RPG at the core. The PvP is always weak or even weaker instanced/fake/sideshow stuff.
Lots of games do single player way better.
Lots of games have co-op but no games do the full on group experience like MMORPGs - and MMORPGs should go back to focusing on that instead of failboating at what other genres do better.
And ditch the F2P since it's a crap model of trying to milk the lowest quality players of money.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
"Although switching to a free or hybrid model seems to be a salvation for some games, these models encourage, but don’t require, ongoing payment."
Completely disagree! Absolutely especially with the newest wave of RMTAH cleverly disguised behind a series of currency conversion systems. Or my personal favorite, requiring that you have a plot of land in order to do any progression at all! These are all called F2P/B2P games that claim that you don't have to buy anything post their launch! But it's not the cast at all! You end up paying after for the ability to progress, something that would have been free in 2011. Since 2012 we've seen game after game come out with terrible economic designs and this alone has been enough to make people leave these games. One title in particular that seems to have a madly fanboyed playerbase actually used DR in their game! DR! Something that's well known to have actually taken out whole gaming companies in the past because players wouldn't put up with restrictions on loot like they do today!
I agree the problem isn't F2P at all, just look at Rift, the problem is a combination of things, serious problems when the game launches, problems with the developers actually delivering on their prelaunch projects, draconian economies, lack of content development as time goes on, the notion of some developers that they shouldn't update their game to reflect the desires of the new playerbase. These are ALL factors as to why people leave. I Left LOTRO and AoC because they are still clinging to the 2004 model of leveling. I left Archeage GW2 NWO and STO because they all have terrible Pay to Progress economies! I left GW2, STO because of lack of content. I left NWO and AoC because lack of class development and balance. If these developers like Cryptic, Arenanet, Turbine want their players to return they are going to have to do some digging and make major changes in the future. Cryptic STO changed their management but he's doing exactly the same crap as the last guy was! We don't want Execubot development in our games the Devs should have complete control over the dev projects and where it goes, NOT some suit!
And I'm sorry to debunk these people who keep saying that Arenanet represents all that's good and wholesome in the scene but NCSoft and Nexon Absolutely has their grubby little fingers in everything that's going on over there in GW2! It's obvious from the lack of content being put out over there, the imbalance in PVE, the problems with rewards, loot and progression that this is the case!
Comments
What really must happen is Gaming companies that develop MMO's need to switch there thinking at launch.
It needs to be less about Customer Acquisition and focus more on Customer Retention, even before the game has launched. You will never get the throngs of players away from WoW, you will be able to tempt them for a month or 2 but they will run right back when a new XPAC is released. Please see WOD numbers.
Customer Retention starts with a good product. I am not saying that it needs to be 100% bug free, but you can't ship with major ones. People will find exploits as Internal Testers can't find them all and Public Beta Testers might not reveal them to you for hope to exploit in live, but it is going to be how fast you can plug those holes, and fix the issues. This is a perception issue also, some bugs are harder to track down and squish so communicate to the community and ask for help in finding them. Companies will find that players are more willing to help squish a bug then exploit it. Show that you listen and care to the player base. This leads to loyalty, as the most important concept of Customer Retention.
Loyalty is generated by everything we talked about above. A good Product, a good relationship with the player base. There is one topic we didn't touch on yet and is the most important is CSR's (Customer Service Rep's) or in most games called GM's. Getting there attention should be easy and effortless, also get rid of the power hungry dicks. Finally spell out in great detail everything they can and can't do, so it avoids the "Oh, I am sorry but I can't help you with that" emails or tickets.
Sorry for the none structured ramblings and none complete thoughts. I have been thinking about this for awhile but never put the ideas down on paper (or in a forum) until now.
The biggest flaw in your first point is the fact that the number 1 MMO on the market right now is WOW. What is the Character customization like? How are the instances in the game? World design is limited, and finally it is a theme park so no digging in.
Your point 2 is a great personal argument for your opinion, but there is no way we can prove your numbers or theories with the information out in the world right now.
=========================================================
=========================================================
Played several games with sub and i stop playing because of botters gold farmers and cheaters.
Ive tried free2play which means FREE TWO PLAY in all the years im playing mmo's only money i spent was my monthly sub but those games(well not games but gamers who played it) RUINED it for me and because i stand by my principals i quit playing mmo's(mainly sandbox) and only play solo games.
For some nostalgia i bought for 8 euros Asheron's call 2 which is now free2 play and is exactly like it was in the old days no cashshop or nonsens like that.
I refuse paying for free2play period.
If a mmo was released where gold farmers botters and cheaters where 100% absent i would pay 25 bucks a months to play this mmo(must be sandbox with open pvp) but developers are not capable of stopping this.
Solo games not bothered with annoying players and cheaters gold sellers botters its heaven.
The Witcher 3 with FREE DLC already bought the game thats my gaming future screw the mmo's.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
You see this more often because there is no barrier to entry to play a F2P game.
B2P cost something so more people are going to read reviews etc... and make an educated purchase.
F2P games you can try on a whim, and many people do. So you get people who go in thinking "this probably sucks, but what the hell I'll give it a try", where with B2P games they aren't very likely to plunk down the dollars if they aren't confident in the game.
So when you have people that are just there to give it a quick try on their main games maintenance day or whatever, they are obviously not interested in sticking around from the get go.
If you want to do a meaningful comparison you would have to compare the subset of players of F2P games that go in educated with the mind set of sticking around, to the B2P players.
Also their are far more crappy F2P games than there are crappy B2P games(hell there are more crappy F2P games than there are total B2P games) So that also skews the number.
Thad doesn't mean there aren't great F2P games, it just means the numbers don't line up because you are comparing apples to oranges.(and to make things worse, you have 200 apples and only 20 oranges to base your faulty comparison on)
So you are going to leave out the fact that LoTRO and TOR also have subscriptions? I think TERA does too but I dont know for sure. A large chunk of their money comes from subs. ESO is going b2p but they are also keeping the subscription as an option.
You are off base.
What the hell does player retention mean in F2P?
6%? OK, of that 6% how many were spenders before the 1st year? How many after? What's the difference?
That's the only number that matters to a non subscription game. How many spenders have been retained?
What do P4F gamers look for in a F2P game?
What does the paying public want?
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The word you are looking for is "churn" mmos are all about player churn, not so much retention in the long term but replacing the players that leave with new or returning players.
As such your Data is incomplete while its true that most mmos lose players, what you do not address is returning players and new players, most MMOs especially free to play ones are all about keeping players cycling in, it doesnt matter if you lose a large portion of your initial playerbase, if you replace them in the medium term.
The number of players who dip in and out of mmos is staggering, with only 3 really "big" subscription games the free to play games and b2p games represent a cyclic style of gaming which a large portion of mmo players seem to fall into. If your current game needs new content to keep you interested try another, and thats what a lot of people, including my self do. MMO devs rely on this much more than the few who drop the big chips, its the many who regularly come back that also prop up their bottom line.
Or, another way of reading it is this:
Knowing that F2P benefits from selling you lots of things quickly at once, and not by keeping you around for a year or more, its not surprising that F2P games only retain 6% of their player base after a year.
Its like someone posting a new article stating "Monster Trucks consume a lot more gas" and then me saying "Thats not surprising. Economy cars are designed for better miles per gallon, monster trucks are designed for power and noise" . The point of mentioning the subscription mmorpgs was a comparison. I know the gut reaction is to immediately think "2 different things on the internet, its gotta be a post saying one is better than the other" but in this case, it was in no way such a thing. It was there for perspective, showing 2 totally different and unique payment models in relation to the news posted by this site.
I believe most people only think GW2 or TERA or RIFT when they think F2P MMOs, but the reality is that the vvvaaaaaaasssstttt majority of F2P games are asian or asian-inspired games.
Someone here had an amazingly good post once about Neverwinter, and why the population there mostly rotates. 99% of F2P games play in the same manner:
1). First hours either grab you or don't
2). If the first hours are good enough, you move on to working through the leveling game, until either PvE or PvP gets competitive
3). You engage the "Cash-shop" super-boss
4). You are either entirely put off by how OP the super-boss is, and leave right away, or you try using $$$ to battle it
5). You realize that either crazy spenders OR (most often) exploiters have already defeated the "Cash-shop" super-boss and made it their bitch
6). At this point, the vast majority of players just say "**** this, moving on"; the ones that remain are those mentioned above, who have defeated the "Cash-shop" boss
I have exited games on all the above points (even reaching the winners against the "Cash-shop" super-boss)...and 100% believe this is why F2P games end up how they end up most of the time.
And, again, you've made gross assumptions there.
First off, F2P doesn't sell "lots of things quickly at once" to most users. Most users don't buy in until after 1-3 months. Retention is important. In a way, it's more important than subscription games during that 30-60 day period, as in the first 30 days of a user's lifecycle, the subscription game makes more money, on the average, from its user since it has received both box/client sale and one or more monthly payments.
Second, your car example presents that economy cars use less gas. This is a given because we have data to support it. What you are suggesting is that it is a given that subscription not only has different retention, but better retention. You seem to have trouble accepting that you are assuming this point.
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
Lineage 1, REALLY? That game is dead in the US/EU and in Korea it's still a subscription game... Guess you meant Lineage II which went fully F2P worldwide with the Goddess of Destruction release. And that game lost most of it's original playerbase because of that expansion...
People check things out, spending some money. If you go to the movies and they charge you to watch per movie, you will have a much less substantial crowd than if it was free. In addition, they will want their money's worth and not want concession stands to exist as they already paid their fees and don't want in-movie stores. Naturally, the rate in which people who fall asleep or leave will be lower.
vs.
A free walk in movie with a concession stand. Nearly a hundred times more people will go to watch the movie. They will likely pass the candy store and buy all the eye candy. Statistically most will leave or fall asleep as they just wanted to check it out and they lose no money (or at least that's the mentality). Many will still likely stay -- likely the same amount if not much, much more (in terms of numbers and minus exceptional rarities like WoW... which has a F2P veteran system up to level 20) even if the rate is low like 6% as a whole. They will also like to be recognize and pay even more to be given a "Movie Vet" robe with an optional monthly rental fee.
Bad examples are bad. But I wanted to make a bad example for a silly title (that's no doubt successful in garnishing a lot of replies and looks, so kudos), irregardless of it's contents and the comments being made.
I hate these percentages in headlines. Especially when taken out of context. We all know retention is a major difiuclty for ANY game, F2P, P2P or anything in between. Mostly because none of them (on release) have sufficient content to hold players interest for too long, plus many (specially forum dwellers) burn through content about 5 times faster than your 'average' player.
But for games that release straight up free to play sure. Especially since many of them are also straight up pay to win or you need to spend money to do anything in them. Runes of Magic, Allods, Sony Dragon one, archeage. Those come to mind as the 'top' games that were released free to play (didnt start out as something else then transition). None of those games were very good. Allods was OK but it got boring pretty fast.
But with any free to play game the feeling you 'need' to play consitently is also not there. The freedom to log in whenever you want is counter productive for a lot of people. So you play and leave and dont worry about losing anything by not playing.
But in the end it is still all about the number of people playing a game. Thats why release time (for better or worse) is still the best time to play most MMOs. because the worlds are full, there are a lot of people running around and its the best case scenario in being able to do group or at least non solo type content. Thats why many games that were actually good and decent get 'dumbed down' or simplified...because later players cant do what original players did. Also why so many have a solo feel to them. Because its necessary. People can make all the claims or denials they want but that is what its like for just about every game out there (including the almighty WoW).
Another problem I think is MMO burn out. A lot of good games people probably rotate through these days just to keep busy. Big mistake IMO. If you have to search out 10 different games to waste your time stop playing them all for awhile. Go do something else. Preferably real world stuff. Then go back and see how it is.
But the ultimate problem (coupled with the ones I mentioned) is that peoples expectations are way too high. They expect games to be released wit the same amount of content as games with 5 expansions and years of bug fixing. So new games get the hype but ultimately fail because people claim they dont have what they need. Then when the numbers drop (and dont come back even with updates and expansions) theyre listed as failures and given up on. Thats the nature of MMOs.
But a few have gotten better. Age of Conan and ESO have both improved. AoC is obviously ancient but it has improved over time, sadly no one plays it. ESO is more current and is still populated and might be the best hope for the genre (at least the quest driven subset) going forward depending on what direction they take with updates and DLCs.
But I really dont see any sort of 'destination' MMO on the horizon even with a dozen or more big name hyped ones plastered all over this site. They all look to be the ride the hype train make all their money up front and fizzle out after a few months types just like everything else has been the past decade.
Case of too many games not enough players to go around to keep the few worth playing populated enough to be 'fun' for any length of time.
Righttt!!!
And that might be because there are what, a handful of P2P games out there?
I think there are good and bad to both sides. People that lump all together are just being oblivious. I look at the game first and then the payment model. Both have to be acceptable to me, but I don't discriminate, like many here do.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
This
There is nothing wrong with the subscription model. But what developer is going to blame themselves when the "model" fails to keep players in their games? Maybe if they made a game that was geared towards retention in the 1st place?
I see this as a catch 22. The number of players who seem to want a long term game is much lower. The number of players who want the fast paced actiony stuff is a lot higher but they don't stay once the game becomes repetitive.
Why not make something like a hybrid between old and new? Clearly XL Games was onto something in tier design that players wanted. A hybrid Themepark-Sanbox system. I don't even think anyone needs to re invent the wheel here. We don't need innovation. We need systems that work and those are already out there. Just make a game that starts to transition closer to level cap. The game starts off like modern MMOs that are fun for a little while but then begins to shift and turn into what resembles the earlier generation of MMORPGs.
That kind of game would be built around the population drop, but I believe it would hit the retention curve earlier and keep more after the initial drop off. It's not like they were ever going to have more than a 6 figure population after the initial rush anyway. Might as well make them happy.
That's because F2P MMORPGs generally suck?
F2P works very well for a game like LOL where there's zero pay 2 win and it's a simpler game. I've thrown money at that game to buy skins or champs and felt like it was a worthy thing and that I wasn't cheating.
F2P in MMORPGs far too often involves pay 2 win and there's no enjoyment for normal people in playing games where you pay to cheat or are surrounded by blatant cheaters.
The games that let you pay cash for game gold IN the game (WildStar, EVE, GW2, Rift, etc) are even worse - that's completely blatant built-in cheating.
A lot of F2P is companies realizing there are lots of (crappy IMO) players who'd rather buy their way thru games or cheat at games than actually play them and they're catering to those people. It's garbage.
The other element is, and I'll continue to go on about this forever, is that MMORPG game when it's good is niche. REAL MMORPG gameplay is about grouping, challenge, and danger - and that is something that is less appealing to casuals and not something that works for solo.
As long as companies keep putting out what are essentially generic single player games with little challenge and no point in existing (since real single player games tend to do single player experiences far better) then what is the point? You're not going to get casual soloists heavily invested and sticking around for utterly genreic gaming even when it's designed FOR THEM.
Way more games are online now. There's way more competition for retaining online gamers. MMORPGs would be better served by focusing and doing what they do best (and what no other genre does at ll) - the grouping stuff- and being content with smaller numbers of dedicated players and stop trying to be everything to everybody and doing a poor job of it.
LOTS of genres do PvP better than MMORPGs. MMORPGs are PvE/RPG at the core. The PvP is always weak or even weaker instanced/fake/sideshow stuff.
Lots of games do single player way better.
Lots of games have co-op but no games do the full on group experience like MMORPGs - and MMORPGs should go back to focusing on that instead of failboating at what other genres do better.
And ditch the F2P since it's a crap model of trying to milk the lowest quality players of money.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
"Although switching to a free or hybrid model seems to be a salvation for some games, these models encourage, but don’t require, ongoing payment."
Completely disagree! Absolutely especially with the newest wave of RMTAH cleverly disguised behind a series of currency conversion systems. Or my personal favorite, requiring that you have a plot of land in order to do any progression at all! These are all called F2P/B2P games that claim that you don't have to buy anything post their launch! But it's not the cast at all! You end up paying after for the ability to progress, something that would have been free in 2011. Since 2012 we've seen game after game come out with terrible economic designs and this alone has been enough to make people leave these games. One title in particular that seems to have a madly fanboyed playerbase actually used DR in their game! DR! Something that's well known to have actually taken out whole gaming companies in the past because players wouldn't put up with restrictions on loot like they do today!
I agree the problem isn't F2P at all, just look at Rift, the problem is a combination of things, serious problems when the game launches, problems with the developers actually delivering on their prelaunch projects, draconian economies, lack of content development as time goes on, the notion of some developers that they shouldn't update their game to reflect the desires of the new playerbase. These are ALL factors as to why people leave. I Left LOTRO and AoC because they are still clinging to the 2004 model of leveling. I left Archeage GW2 NWO and STO because they all have terrible Pay to Progress economies! I left GW2, STO because of lack of content. I left NWO and AoC because lack of class development and balance. If these developers like Cryptic, Arenanet, Turbine want their players to return they are going to have to do some digging and make major changes in the future. Cryptic STO changed their management but he's doing exactly the same crap as the last guy was! We don't want Execubot development in our games the Devs should have complete control over the dev projects and where it goes, NOT some suit!
And I'm sorry to debunk these people who keep saying that Arenanet represents all that's good and wholesome in the scene but NCSoft and Nexon Absolutely has their grubby little fingers in everything that's going on over there in GW2! It's obvious from the lack of content being put out over there, the imbalance in PVE, the problems with rewards, loot and progression that this is the case!