and yet most f2p players leeches and as you said .. 80% left soon. Sure .. the whales are exploited .. may be one week, may be longer.
But most players are not whales .. so whatever you said only applies to a small minority of players.
Plus ... even for a whale .. how many free games would he play before he got snatched up?
And .. do you have a cite for the ONE WEEK WINDOW comment? I don't quite believe it.
One week was a reference based off statistics you have previously provided in a different thread combined with stats I pulled from an article I previously posted citing the buying pattern of consumers.
Notable points on your claims. For one, whales tend to be slower to react in purchases, they are frequently more cautious and don't invest in titles as just a reflex. There certainly are "suckers", but there is also a knowing degree of investment that goes into establishing oneself as a meaningful consumer in a title.
Most players aren't whales, true. That does nothing to dissuade the fact that a lot of consumers still pay up something. Other terms that apply to lower pay brackets in F2P are dolphins and minnows, who pay nowhere's near as much as a whale on their individual basis, but do have volume in terms of how many of them there are and how much they are investing. It's notably these groups that have shorter play cycles and drop out of games faster, but they also are more reflexive consumers and pay out sooner.
Point with this being, you are inaccurately pinning the onus upon a singular group and failing to recall there is a large swathe of consumers still getting bilked. throwing $60 or even $100 at a game is very far from making you a whale (yet still enough to equate you to a B2P consumer), but it's easy enough to do if you are emotionally motivated to do so regardless of the title's quality.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Most players aren't whales, true. That does nothing to dissuade the fact that a lot of consumers still pay up something.
A MAJORITY of players do not pay anything. That may be "a lot" by actual numbers (since millions are playing), it is still the minority of the player population.
http://www.mmobomb.com/f2p-twice-as-big-p2p
"Another note in SuperData’s report is the tidbit that states that the F2P conversion rate is “consistently above 15%.” Wargaming CEO Victor Kislyi has said on multiple occasions that the conversion rate in World of Tanks is around 20-30%, which would put his game ahead of the curve."
So these statements indicate the the conversion rate is some where between 15-30%. That means more than 70% of the players (a MAJORITY) don't spend a dime.
All the whales, dolphins and minnows add up to less than 30%.
A MAJORITY of players do not pay anything. That may be "a lot" by actual numbers (since millions are playing), it is still the minority of the player population.
http://www.mmobomb.com/f2p-twice-as-big-p2p
"Another note in SuperData’s report is the tidbit that states that the F2P conversion rate is “consistently above 15%.” Wargaming CEO Victor Kislyi has said on multiple occasions that the conversion rate in World of Tanks is around 20-30%, which would put his game ahead of the curve."
So these statements indicate the the conversion rate is some where between 15-30%. That means more than 70% of the players (a MAJORITY) don't spend a dime.
All the whales, dolphins and minnows add up to less than 30%.
You do realize that you linked to an article which cites World of Tanks. If you look at that game's stats it has the highest amount of average revenue per user. On top of that it supposedly has ~8.5m active users versus ~75m registered. Taking the notion that 20-30% of it's monthly active users paying into the title is rather pretty generous when put into perspective. Just looking at this point reaffirms that (source). The majority not spending a dime isn't inconsequential to the fact that you still have several million paying into the tile. That's not an insignificant number. It also does nothing to invalidate the fact that there are plenty of consumers paying into these things without necessarily enjoying it, but as an impulse before their turnover (which is also a point noting that they are not then an active user and not included in your shared stats or mine, so it's actually an ignored consumer base in the case of these studies).
EDIT: I would point out, for example, that from these stats, you can see the decline of new users as well as only ~20% rate for users (not just active) (1.5m players) getting past 500 battles in the american region. The strongest player base is Russia with a 50% rate for all users (not just active) (14m) and they have ~4m active users (compared to US 200k active users). This ultimately means the overall active participation in the title versus the amount of consumers paying into it, is pretty marginal when we start putting everything into context.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I'd like to note this is a very subjective stance. For one, there are pretty clear means to exploiting customers and driving them into emotional investments that have nothing to do with them actually liking a title. Many such purchases can and do happen within a one week window, which also falls in line with statistics that tend to note the 80% dropoff that happens in most titles. This is all lost investment for those players that puts the same effect as if it were B2P.
If 80% of players quit a game in the first week, that's fine. Almost none of those players are payers (they didn't like the game, so why would they pay?)
Among the remaining 20% who actually enjoy their time with the game, some will choose to pay. With F2P everyone is able to play the game as much as it takes before deciding to pay. With B2P you don't have that option: fork over cash now, or you can't play at all (or at best you can only play a very limited demo.)
As for emotional investments, B2P games are significantly driven by hype (because they need to get you to fork over money before you've played their game, so logically they're big on getting you excited emotionally about the game.)
So no, nothing I'm saying is particularly subjective. It's logic: B2P provides far less of the actual experience before requiring money, so players are more vulnerable to giving money to a game they don't enjoy than a F2P title where they are never required to pay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well we can see in the posts I just made prior to your response, that's not really accurate, but you're free to that opinion.
Also says nothing of the points made in the linked articles from my first response to Nariu that points out an aspect of the consumer buying habits versus the retention drop off. You're somewhat erroneously skipping across that time progression to make an assertion, and subsequently ignoring a lot of the reality of those statistics.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You do realize that you linked to an article which cites World of Tanks. If you look at that game's stats it has the highest amount of average revenue per user. On top of that it supposedly has ~8.5m active users versus ~75m registered. Taking the notion that 20-30% of it's monthly active users paying into the title is rather pretty generous when put into perspective. Just looking at this point reaffirms that (source). The majority not spending a dime isn't inconsequential to the fact that you still have several million paying into the tile. That's not an insignificant number. It also does nothing to invalidate the fact that there are plenty of consumers paying into these things without necessarily enjoying it, but as an impulse before their turnover (which is also a point noting that they are not then an active user and not included in your shared stats or mine, so it's actually an ignored consumer base in the case of these studies).
Of course i know it is WoT. And in fact, you are making my point. Anyway you cut it .. only a minority of the players ever pays into a f2p game. In fact, WOT (in my original cite) has the highest conversion rate, so you can expect a MUCH smaller number than 25% (your number) of conversion.
Given that ONLY 25% of active users pays, and MOST users don't even stick around for a month, the actual number of players who pay ANYTHING is smaller. If you include the registered users (non-active users as you have suggested), the fraction of players who pay anything is even smaller.
Now I am not insensitive to the fact that a small percentage of a big number can still be sizable. But again, how is a small % of paying customers (and a even diminishing fraction of whales) a huge problem of exploitation and psychological pressure? Those tactics obviously do not work in the 75% of the active users, and even less so (probably zero) on the non-active tourists who just sample the game for 15 min.
If your point is that devs uses some tactics to coerce payment .. then i agree because that is obvious true. If your point is that devs can just trap most players and fleece them .. then obviously it is not true because a) most left fast so there are few to fleece, and b) even those, they can only get a minority (~25%) to pay something, and a very fraction to pay significant.
Of course i know it is WoT. And in fact, you are making my point. Anyway you cut it .. only a minority of the players ever pays into a f2p game. In fact, WOT (in my original cite) has the highest conversion rate, so you can expect a MUCH smaller number than 25% (your number) of conversion.
Given that ONLY 25% of active users pays, and MOST users don't even stick around for a month, the actual number of players who pay ANYTHING is smaller. If you include the registered users (non-active users as you have suggested), the fraction of players who pay anything is even smaller.
Now I am not insensitive to the fact that a small percentage of a big number can still be sizable. But again, how is a small % of paying customers (and a even diminishing fraction of whales) a huge problem of exploitation and psychological pressure? Those tactics obviously do not work in the 75% of the active users, and even less so (probably zero) on the non-active tourists who just sample the game for 15 min.
If your point is that devs uses some tactics to coerce payment .. then i agree because that is obvious true. If your point is that devs can just trap most players and fleece them .. then obviously it is not true because a) most left fast so there are few to fleece, and b) even those, they can only get a minority (~25%) to pay something, and a very fraction to pay significant.
That whole diatribe doesn't even work the moment you started is for the simple fact that the amount of people who had converted (2.5m) was a stat from 2 years ago. Compared to the present active user numbers you can pull from the site I linked (~5m) that pay gap, ignoring the fact that those users may very well have cycled out and new ones replaced them and paid as well, drops the ratio to ~50% as opposed to the 25-30% as the total user base has dropped, but once you have paid them your money is theirs.
All this, including your last paragraph, does nothing to disprove the point that a decent amount of people fall into that window where they will pay into a product before the 80% drop off has completed. Your repeated mistake is again, ignoring the statistics that are inconveniencing you to make a claim in-congruent with reality. 80% of the population doesn't just up and leave as soon as they start playing, that's a process that takes up to a month and it's around a week out that you see half the population gone. When minnows and dolphins pay out within the first week or two, that gives them plenty of time for poor decisions and falling victim to being fleeced before realizing it's not a game they really enjoy.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"Free" is not good enough to compete with anything. Only Greedy companies benefit of "Free" games by abusing the poor(rich) braindead whales.
You forgot the majority non-whales who are enjoying free fun games?
You mean "leeches." No can't forget them.
Same difference ... just a different name. So while greedy companies exploits whales, greedy players exploits company. Seems like a great balance of karma to me.
Do the whales get to then exploit the the leeches? If not, there is a link missing in your karmic example.
Your repeated mistake is again, ignoring the statistics that are inconveniencing you to make a claim in-congruent with reality.
Isn't that what you are doing?
And don't even forget WoT has the highest conversion rate ... most games are much lower. You can go round and round to sounds like most people got fleeced .. but in reality very small percentage do, and most play for free.
In fact, even if you throw in the minnow (which you can't claim that they pay more than what they got ... a few dollars here and there are way cheaper than subs or b2p) ... my point is still valid.
Very few pays a lot for f2p games .. and few pays anything at all. You can continue to put your head in the sand (which I think you will) .. but that is your choice.
In fact, while you are agonizing over *some* whales getting the short-end of the deal, i am enjoying free games (that is, when i have time from my other hobbies).
"Free" is not good enough to compete with anything. Only Greedy companies benefit of "Free" games by abusing the poor(rich) braindead whales.
You forgot the majority non-whales who are enjoying free fun games?
You mean "leeches." No can't forget them.
Same difference ... just a different name. So while greedy companies exploits whales, greedy players exploits company. Seems like a great balance of karma to me.
Do the whales get to then exploit the the leeches? If not, there is a link missing in your karmic example.
nah ... only the karma of the DEVS is balanced.
But still, since there are more leechers than whales out there, those games are FREE for most.
Well we can see in the posts I just made prior to your response, that's not really accurate, but you're free to that opinion.
Also says nothing of the points made in the linked articles from my first response to Nariu that points out an aspect of the consumer buying habits versus the retention drop off. You're somewhat erroneously skipping across that time progression to make an assertion, and subsequently ignoring a lot of the reality of those statistics.
None of what you said disputes the plainly obvious fact that knowledge is power, and players have more knowledge with F2P than with B2P. (They'll have played more of the game, and have a significantly better understanding of whether the game is worth their money.)
Neither of your articles disputes my point that players who lapse quickly (2 days) are spending less money than those who lapse slowly (2+ years). The first article mostly just uncovers the "golden cohort" to those who were unaware it was a thing (the first batch of users to try a new game will retain longer, spend more, and basically tend to be your best all-around players.) The second article wasn't related.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And don't even forget WoT has the highest conversion rate ... most games are much lower. You can go round and round to sounds like most people got fleeced .. but in reality very small percentage do, and most play for free.
In fact, even if you throw in the minnow (which you can't claim that they pay more than what they got ... a few dollars here and there are way cheaper than subs or b2p) ... my point is still valid.
Very few pays a lot for f2p games .. and few pays anything at all. You can continue to put your head in the sand (which I think you will) .. but that is your choice.
In fact, while you are agonizing over *some* whales getting the short-end of the deal, i am enjoying free games (that is, when i have time from my other hobbies).
And you just made the same mistakes again.
"Very few pays a lot for f2p games..."
Didn't say they need to pay a lot. What I did say is that there are plenty of impulse purchases being made and people losing money.
And this is again the flaw in your logic that you are looking at conversion rates for active users, not users as a whole who have paid.
As for Axe's commentary. That's a divorce from logic.
I've covered in the past the very misleading nature of the claim you make about B2P vs F2P and the fact that you ignore all the open access that modern media as well as the developers themselves provide in players making an informed decision as well as their own critical bias when assessing B2P vs F2P with how that affects player perception of the titles and their intent to purchase.
Your point ("players who lapse quickly (2 days) are spending less money than those who lapse slowly") is , as often seems to be the case, inconsequential to anything that's been said.Not to mention that up until now you've said nothing that makes such an intended point. Saying something so mind-numbingly obvious that has nothing to do with the conversation others have is pointless. Seriously, saying "people pay more money if they play the same game for longer" means absolutely nothing to the context of any argument being had in this thread presently. That's like claiming you "love lamp".
You saying the second article "wasn't related" to the subject is entirely dismissive as well, as it's illustrative of the time-gap between first trying a game versus first investment into the game and the fact that impulse purchases happen to the same effect as B2P within F2P titles, and in some regards the F2P game is considerably more effective at bilking people for money without being particularly great games.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
As for Axe's commentary. That's a divorce from logic.
I've covered in the past the very misleading nature of the claim you make about B2P vs F2P and the fact that you ignore all the open access that modern media as well as the developers themselves provide in players making an informed decision as well as their own critical bias when assessing B2P vs F2P with how that affects player perception of the titles and their intent to purchase.
Your point ("players who lapse quickly (2 days) are spending less money than those who lapse slowly") is , as often seems to be the case, inconsequential to anything that's been said.Not to mention that up until now you've said nothing that makes such an intended point. Saying something so mind-numbingly obvious that has nothing to do with the conversation others have is pointless. Seriously, saying "people pay more money if they play the same game for longer" means absolutely nothing to the context of any argument being had in this thread presently. That's like claiming you "love lamp".
You saying the second article "wasn't related" to the subject is entirely dismissive as well, as it's illustrative of the time-gap between first trying a game versus first investment into the game and the fact that impulse purchases happen to the same effect as B2P within F2P titles, and in some regards the F2P game is considerably more effective at bilking people for money without being particularly great games.
There's nothing misleading about my claim of B2P vs. F2P. A F2P player has better info about the actual entertainment they're getting from a game than a B2P player, because a F2P player is getting entertainment before money changes hands, while the B2P player isn't (or is getting a tiny trickle of the entertainment in the form of a demo.) Nobody is suggesting F2P is devoid of things players find bad, but there's just no argument that works against the fact that you're better protected from getting ripped off in F2P.
My point about retention was mostly a dismissal of your uselessly vague comment that "many" purchases happen in the first week. Do you have more information about whether you're enjoying an experience after playing it an hour firsthand, or before? Whether or not players have perfect information about how their F2P purchases affect the experience, they certainly have more information than a B2P player has.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And your whole pretense is built on the assumption that the "free" component of F2P titles is not, functionally, a demo. Which is in many regards a false pretense.
There is only one means by which B2P rips you off, and that is through failing to deliver on the promise of the purchase. F2P and it's monetization model has a perpetual trickle for opportunity to do so to players through emotional reactions and impulse purchases tied to behaviors of the game meant not to incite entertainment, but a pursuit of something that you feel is in threat. Something that's been previously described as "painful fun".
Your entire last paragraph ends up being circular logic on the matter as well. You are again making broadly dismissive assumptions and remarks in order to even make the question around the remark "after playing it an hour firsthand". When an argument and an inquiry is based first-most on false assumptions, no answer to the posed inquiry will have meaning.
Point in case, you forgot again all the changes and means of access players have to information, experience, demos, pre-release, etc that mandates zero purchase on top of the fact that B2P gets a markedly harsh analysis in contrast to F2P which is more forgivingly regarded even though it shares in all the same suggested misgivings B2P can offer (more so at present with the trend of founders purchases). So to preface the question properly, you would have to put it into the more informed context of "Given the current level of exposure these models both provide and you can obtain within an hour, which one most readily poses the intent to draw money from you through subtle and manipulative means combating the core of delivering a clearly identifiable quality experience versus a clear investment that's weighted against the whole of it's work?" The idea that an individual has an understanding of how much a game is going to try and bleed them over the course of play will more than likely not be identified in the course of an hour, and this goes all the more when you account for the use of early-game experiences being used as the "built-in demo" with the content that follows not establishing the same standards, but promising one if you keep giving them a little more money.
Establishing your argument on a false pretense and ignoring anything that might skew the established opinion is not a way to produce a meaningful argument.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
This is just a phase. When you people learn that F2P means its free to download and start, but not actually free to enjoy, then we can have a conversation. Many of you are happy playing a new F2P game every month. But quite a few MMO players want a game they can sink their teeth into.
So how to compete? You don't need to. People will learn the hard way and it will all correct itself. Or something better will come out of it.
That is just you ... obviously plenty of people are happy playing f2p games.
Otherwise, why is the market increasingly f2p? I don't think you are disputing that fact that f2p makes much more money than sub-only games, are you?
BTW, you are seriously telling me that no one enjoys games like LoL for more than a month for free?
Ok.... first off.... there are no free MMO games. They all cost money if you truly want to delve into them. Some of them are fair, some are not.
The market is increasingly F2P because it churns out a quick buck. Hence the reason the turnover is so high. Some companies have been even copying games using many of the resources over to get people to basically replay, and repurchase their F2P game.
And also, are you seriously trying to tell me that LoL is an MMO? Because as far as I am concerned, we are talking about F2P MMO's in the MMO forum, and not a 10 player game.
Ok I think we can change the name of this thread to The Three Stooges....
i cant imagine anyone else beside those three are reading each others post. How is even possible you guys are still keeping this thread alive? This has to have the record for the most wall of texts post in one thread.
"Free" is not good enough to compete with anything. Only Greedy companies benefit of "Free" games by abusing the poor(rich) braindead whales.
You forgot the majority non-whales who are enjoying free fun games?
You mean "leeches." No can't forget them.
Same difference ... just a different name. So while greedy companies exploits whales, greedy players exploits company. Seems like a great balance of karma to me.
Do the whales get to then exploit the the leeches? If not, there is a link missing in your karmic example.
nah ... only the karma of the DEVS is balanced.
But still, since there are more leechers than whales out there, those games are FREE for most.
I don't think thats actually true, those who pay and those who don't, often play very different games, if anything, the ones who don't pay, often become the 'content' of those that do, this is particularly true of PVP orientated games, you could almost say that the none payers are the trash mobs that have to be cleared first before you can fight the 'boss mob' the 'boss mob' being another paying player.
The intent of the OP was to suggest that developers roll over and play dead. That they should eliminate all obstacles to Free Gaming (ie subs, P2W, and cash shops). This is the "quality" that is referred to. Meaning that a quality game would make available to the free gamer all the content and features offered to the subscribing or cash shop using player, but at no cost to the Play 4 Free Gamer. This isn't going to happen.
I want the AI bots to indistinguishable from real life gamers. They should be roaming the game world leveling their characters, joining PUGs, raids, PvP, and using Teamspeak. Dev's want the AI to be dumb voiceless NPCs that they sell in the cash shop. I think both ideas will be seen in the market soon.
Go ahead, do it. Just don't touch the games and people that actually have character still. That's only for the people that wanted a lifeless dead virtual world.
I think you are trying to say leave the AI bots to gamers who want lifeless dead virtual worlds. Where you are wrong is assuming the AI bots will appear lifeless. The real goal of the AI bots is to make the world appear more alive for the paying customer. Now if your comment comes from not being a paying customer and resentment at being replaced by an AI. Then I have no sympathy. Games are made to make money. They can not be played for free. I never read the fine print either, may be none of the so called F2P games really say: "That's ok, Don't spend any money and just play the game as long as you want."
If I made a F2P game, its fine print would read something along the line. Play for free for one month, you continued play after that month is a binding contract of use of service and must be paid for. The cash shop shall be used on a monthly basis to pay for said use of service at a rate of $10 or more. Failure to pay for use of service, will terminate the use of service.
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.
The intent of the OP was to suggest that developers roll over and play dead. That they should eliminate all obstacles to Free Gaming (ie subs, P2W, and cash shops). This is the "quality" that is referred to. Meaning that a quality game would make available to the free gamer all the content and features offered to the subscribing or cash shop using player, but at no cost to the Play 4 Free Gamer. This isn't going to happen.
I want the AI bots to Be indistinguishable from real life gamers. They should be roaming the game world leveling their characters, joining PUGs, raids, PvP, and using Teamspeak. Dev's want the AI to be dumb voiceless NPCs that they sell in the cash shop. I think both ideas will be seen in the market soon.
I think your entire premise of bots is insane but if they did all the things you said they should do, they'd take up the same server load since the exact same stuff would be stored.. more so because the server would have to calculate all of the actions ; ;
True the AI bots would take up the same database space as P4F gamers with stuff being stored. "more so because the server would have to calculate all of the actions", this is the part I am trying to minimize or at least prove that the value added by the realism of the AI balances the cost. Remember also that all Mobs and NPC have the server calculate all of their actions. Truth it will take more server load, but less communication load from not having to listen for P4F gamers actions. And that is the balance or value added.
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.
And your whole pretense is built on the assumption that the "free" component of F2P titles is not, functionally, a demo. Which is in many regards a false pretense.
It is a demo.
F2P's demo is ~80% of the game.
P2P's demo is ~5% of the game.
No matter which way you try to spin it, F2P players have more information.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The problem is that a noun needs to have at least a somewhat solid definition.
Why? MMOs have been broadened and vague for a long time. So? It is not like the market is going to collapse.
Because the term becomes meaningless. Nope its not going to collapse. It just means conversations are more muddled and derailed when your comparing randomly chosen match based games with MMORPG.
If I said apples are getting bigger and majority of my examples are pears... people are going to say those are pears and can't be used to compare how big apples are.
Comments
Notable points on your claims. For one, whales tend to be slower to react in purchases, they are frequently more cautious and don't invest in titles as just a reflex. There certainly are "suckers", but there is also a knowing degree of investment that goes into establishing oneself as a meaningful consumer in a title.
Most players aren't whales, true. That does nothing to dissuade the fact that a lot of consumers still pay up something. Other terms that apply to lower pay brackets in F2P are dolphins and minnows, who pay nowhere's near as much as a whale on their individual basis, but do have volume in terms of how many of them there are and how much they are investing. It's notably these groups that have shorter play cycles and drop out of games faster, but they also are more reflexive consumers and pay out sooner.
Point with this being, you are inaccurately pinning the onus upon a singular group and failing to recall there is a large swathe of consumers still getting bilked. throwing $60 or even $100 at a game is very far from making you a whale (yet still enough to equate you to a B2P consumer), but it's easy enough to do if you are emotionally motivated to do so regardless of the title's quality.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
EDIT: I would point out, for example, that from these stats, you can see the decline of new users as well as only ~20% rate for users (not just active) (1.5m players) getting past 500 battles in the american region. The strongest player base is Russia with a 50% rate for all users (not just active) (14m) and they have ~4m active users (compared to US 200k active users). This ultimately means the overall active participation in the title versus the amount of consumers paying into it, is pretty marginal when we start putting everything into context.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Among the remaining 20% who actually enjoy their time with the game, some will choose to pay. With F2P everyone is able to play the game as much as it takes before deciding to pay. With B2P you don't have that option: fork over cash now, or you can't play at all (or at best you can only play a very limited demo.)
As for emotional investments, B2P games are significantly driven by hype (because they need to get you to fork over money before you've played their game, so logically they're big on getting you excited emotionally about the game.)
So no, nothing I'm saying is particularly subjective. It's logic: B2P provides far less of the actual experience before requiring money, so players are more vulnerable to giving money to a game they don't enjoy than a F2P title where they are never required to pay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Also says nothing of the points made in the linked articles from my first response to Nariu that points out an aspect of the consumer buying habits versus the retention drop off. You're somewhat erroneously skipping across that time progression to make an assertion, and subsequently ignoring a lot of the reality of those statistics.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Given that ONLY 25% of active users pays, and MOST users don't even stick around for a month, the actual number of players who pay ANYTHING is smaller. If you include the registered users (non-active users as you have suggested), the fraction of players who pay anything is even smaller.
Now I am not insensitive to the fact that a small percentage of a big number can still be sizable. But again, how is a small % of paying customers (and a even diminishing fraction of whales) a huge problem of exploitation and psychological pressure? Those tactics obviously do not work in the 75% of the active users, and even less so (probably zero) on the non-active tourists who just sample the game for 15 min.
If your point is that devs uses some tactics to coerce payment .. then i agree because that is obvious true. If your point is that devs can just trap most players and fleece them .. then obviously it is not true because a) most left fast so there are few to fleece, and b) even those, they can only get a minority (~25%) to pay something, and a very fraction to pay significant.
All this, including your last paragraph, does nothing to disprove the point that a decent amount of people fall into that window where they will pay into a product before the 80% drop off has completed. Your repeated mistake is again, ignoring the statistics that are inconveniencing you to make a claim in-congruent with reality. 80% of the population doesn't just up and leave as soon as they start playing, that's a process that takes up to a month and it's around a week out that you see half the population gone. When minnows and dolphins pay out within the first week or two, that gives them plenty of time for poor decisions and falling victim to being fleeced before realizing it's not a game they really enjoy.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
VG
And don't even forget WoT has the highest conversion rate ... most games are much lower. You can go round and round to sounds like most people got fleeced .. but in reality very small percentage do, and most play for free.
In fact, even if you throw in the minnow (which you can't claim that they pay more than what they got ... a few dollars here and there are way cheaper than subs or b2p) ... my point is still valid.
Very few pays a lot for f2p games .. and few pays anything at all. You can continue to put your head in the sand (which I think you will) .. but that is your choice.
In fact, while you are agonizing over *some* whales getting the short-end of the deal, i am enjoying free games (that is, when i have time from my other hobbies).
nah ... only the karma of the DEVS is balanced.
But still, since there are more leechers than whales out there, those games are FREE for most.
Neither of your articles disputes my point that players who lapse quickly (2 days) are spending less money than those who lapse slowly (2+ years). The first article mostly just uncovers the "golden cohort" to those who were unaware it was a thing (the first batch of users to try a new game will retain longer, spend more, and basically tend to be your best all-around players.) The second article wasn't related.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"Very few pays a lot for f2p games..."
Didn't say they need to pay a lot. What I did say is that there are plenty of impulse purchases being made and people losing money.
And this is again the flaw in your logic that you are looking at conversion rates for active users, not users as a whole who have paid.
As for Axe's commentary. That's a divorce from logic.
I've covered in the past the very misleading nature of the claim you make about B2P vs F2P and the fact that you ignore all the open access that modern media as well as the developers themselves provide in players making an informed decision as well as their own critical bias when assessing B2P vs F2P with how that affects player perception of the titles and their intent to purchase.
Your point ("players who lapse quickly (2 days) are spending less money than those who lapse slowly") is , as often seems to be the case, inconsequential to anything that's been said.Not to mention that up until now you've said nothing that makes such an intended point. Saying something so mind-numbingly obvious that has nothing to do with the conversation others have is pointless. Seriously, saying "people pay more money if they play the same game for longer" means absolutely nothing to the context of any argument being had in this thread presently. That's like claiming you "love lamp".
You saying the second article "wasn't related" to the subject is entirely dismissive as well, as it's illustrative of the time-gap between first trying a game versus first investment into the game and the fact that impulse purchases happen to the same effect as B2P within F2P titles, and in some regards the F2P game is considerably more effective at bilking people for money without being particularly great games.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
My point about retention was mostly a dismissal of your uselessly vague comment that "many" purchases happen in the first week. Do you have more information about whether you're enjoying an experience after playing it an hour firsthand, or before? Whether or not players have perfect information about how their F2P purchases affect the experience, they certainly have more information than a B2P player has.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There is only one means by which B2P rips you off, and that is through failing to deliver on the promise of the purchase. F2P and it's monetization model has a perpetual trickle for opportunity to do so to players through emotional reactions and impulse purchases tied to behaviors of the game meant not to incite entertainment, but a pursuit of something that you feel is in threat. Something that's been previously described as "painful fun".
Your entire last paragraph ends up being circular logic on the matter as well. You are again making broadly dismissive assumptions and remarks in order to even make the question around the remark "after playing it an hour firsthand". When an argument and an inquiry is based first-most on false assumptions, no answer to the posed inquiry will have meaning.
Point in case, you forgot again all the changes and means of access players have to information, experience, demos, pre-release, etc that mandates zero purchase on top of the fact that B2P gets a markedly harsh analysis in contrast to F2P which is more forgivingly regarded even though it shares in all the same suggested misgivings B2P can offer (more so at present with the trend of founders purchases). So to preface the question properly, you would have to put it into the more informed context of "Given the current level of exposure these models both provide and you can obtain within an hour, which one most readily poses the intent to draw money from you through subtle and manipulative means combating the core of delivering a clearly identifiable quality experience versus a clear investment that's weighted against the whole of it's work?" The idea that an individual has an understanding of how much a game is going to try and bleed them over the course of play will more than likely not be identified in the course of an hour, and this goes all the more when you account for the use of early-game experiences being used as the "built-in demo" with the content that follows not establishing the same standards, but promising one if you keep giving them a little more money.
Establishing your argument on a false pretense and ignoring anything that might skew the established opinion is not a way to produce a meaningful argument.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
The market is increasingly F2P because it churns out a quick buck. Hence the reason the turnover is so high. Some companies have been even copying games using many of the resources over to get people to basically replay, and repurchase their F2P game.
And also, are you seriously trying to tell me that LoL is an MMO? Because as far as I am concerned, we are talking about F2P MMO's in the MMO forum, and not a 10 player game.
i cant imagine anyone else beside those three are reading each others post. How is even possible you guys are still keeping this thread alive? This has to have the record for the most wall of texts post in one thread.
easy question: by making a product, that is worth SOMETHING...ANYTHING
now give me my goddamn million...
seriously..the market is saturated.blizzard couldnt make it. can you?
If I made a F2P game, its fine print would read something along the line. Play for free for one month, you continued play after that month is a binding contract of use of service and must be paid for. The cash shop shall be used on a monthly basis to pay for said use of service at a rate of $10 or more. Failure to pay for use of service, will terminate the use of service.
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.
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.
- F2P's demo is ~80% of the game.
- P2P's demo is ~5% of the game.
No matter which way you try to spin it, F2P players have more information."What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If I said apples are getting bigger and majority of my examples are pears... people are going to say those are pears and can't be used to compare how big apples are.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver