Sooner or later the gaming industry is going to realize "innovative" business models don't keep players. You need to actually design a good game. The Sub model died because games stopped appealing to players for more than a month or 2. WTF good does a sub model do if your game is designed for players to play for 6-8 weeks?
Retention comes from the game's design. Revenue comes from the game's business model.
With any given game design, a F2P version of the game will simply generate better revenue.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Mixed bag for me, I'm fond of monthly subs because it allows for a more fair system of progression, either you play the game and earn your stuff or you don't. On the other hand, I do enjoy being able to spend a few bucks on something I actually want as long as it's not too expensive for what it is. GW2 cash shop was almost perfect imo, although I'd probably prefer to just pay a sub and farm the items myself.
Sooner or later the gaming industry is going to realize "innovative" business models don't keep players.
And they already figure out they don't need to keep most players for long to make money.
The real question is though, how do you feel about this, slippery Seldon? "In measuring pricing model preference, we found that 82% percent of US audiences, and 87% of UK audiences preferred games with a one time fee."
Spooky shit for someone with your preferences.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Why go F2P when you can go B2P AND have a cash shop? Clearly everyone THINKS it's a one-time cost but by the time they realize the truth it'll be too late anyways.
Sooner or later the gaming industry is going to realize "innovative" business models don't keep players.
And they already figure out they don't need to keep most players for long to make money.
The real question is though, how do you feel about this, slippery Seldon? "In measuring pricing model preference, we found that 82% percent of US audiences, and 87% of UK audiences preferred games with a one time fee."
Sooner or later the gaming industry is going to realize "innovative" business models don't keep players.
And they already figure out they don't need to keep most players for long to make money.
The real question is though, how do you feel about this, slippery Seldon? "In measuring pricing model preference, we found that 82% percent of US audiences, and 87% of UK audiences preferred games with a one time fee."
Spooky shit for someone with your preferences.
Feel great. No more subs.
Old news, lol. But soon enough your gaming is likely no longer going to be a free ride on the asses of whales; something you have bragged about for years now. Swallow that with a glass of your finest.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Mixed bag for me, I'm fond of monthly subs because it allows for a more fair system of progression, either you play the game and earn your stuff or you don't. On the other hand, I do enjoy being able to spend a few bucks on something I actually want as long as it's not too expensive for what it is. GW2 cash shop was almost perfect imo, although I'd probably prefer to just pay a sub and farm the items myself.
Totally agree. I like sub, but Im old school (from since Asherons Call).
Sooner or later the gaming industry is going to realize "innovative" business models don't keep players.
And they already figure out they don't need to keep most players for long to make money.
The real question is though, how do you feel about this, slippery Seldon? "In measuring pricing model preference, we found that 82% percent of US audiences, and 87% of UK audiences preferred games with a one time fee."
Spooky shit for someone with your preferences.
Feel great. No more subs.
Old news, lol. But soon enough your gaming is likely no longer going to be a free ride on the asses of whales; something you have bloated about for years now. Swallow that with a glass of your finest.
That's pretty much why I won't play F2P.
1. I can't afford to play Free 2 Play (I can, but won't).
2. I do my best to pay the least amount in taxes because I hate deadbeats living off my productivity. F2P is no different.
Sooner or later the gaming industry is going to realize "innovative" business models don't keep players. You need to actually design a good game. The Sub model died because games stopped appealing to players for more than a month or 2. WTF good does a sub model do if your game is designed for players to play for 6-8 weeks?
Retention comes from the game's design. Revenue comes from the game's business model.
With any given game design, a F2P version of the game will simply generate better revenue.
That's really not true.
Retention is influenced by the user experience across the board, and that includes the manner in which they feel their investment is being returned by the game.
With any given game, the question of it being F2P only generates higher revenue when multiple external factors are met. Foremost the initial user experience has to be good enough to hook a player and secondly the monetization and business model needs to not deter the user from considering the investment too high long run or alternatively simply lacking in value.
This is why if we take any example of the entirety of the game market, there are many games that simply fail because "F2P" only gets people through the door to take a glance.
"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
So the F2P crowd is a loud minority. I always assumed as much.
I'm definitely part of the 82% of Americans that prefers to buy the box.
97% of all statistics are pulled out of someones ass.
Statistics is just a story made up from data. People twist it any way they please.
The only reason the OP statistics might actually have some validity is all the silly developers flaunting their ~10% conversion rates for microtransactions. Kind of amazing how it all lines up.
Old news, lol. But soon enough your gaming is likely no longer going to be a free ride on the asses of whales; something you have bloated about for years now. Swallow that with a glass of your finest.
That's pretty much why I won't play F2P.
1. I can't afford to play Free 2 Play (I can, but won't).
Then you can't afford B2P either, because its basically B2P + F2P nowdays. There is no real B2P anymore, just "B2P + Cash Shop" scams.
Sooner or later the gaming industry is going to realize "innovative" business models don't keep players. You need to actually design a good game. The Sub model died because games stopped appealing to players for more than a month or 2. WTF good does a sub model do if your game is designed for players to play for 6-8 weeks?
Retention comes from the game's design. Revenue comes from the game's business model.
With any given game design, a F2P version of the game will simply generate better revenue.
That's just because none of the MMOs being made now are worth a shit. They need to hit you for large sums quickly because the game isn't good enough to keep you around.
The real question is though, how do you feel about this, slippery Seldon? "In measuring pricing model preference, we found that 82% percent of US audiences, and 87% of UK audiences preferred games with a one time fee."
That's just because none of the MMOs being made now are worth a shit. They need to hit you for large sums quickly because the game isn't good enough to keep you around.
The core of what I'm saying is that those two things are controlled by different factors. Whether an MMO is shit or amazing, it's gonna make more as F2P. Being shit or amazing determines whether people stay. Being F2P or not determines whether people pay (more.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Meh, there's room in the market for all types of business model.
F2P relies on having a very large userbase so that the small conversion rate (of free players to whales) will still produce enough cash to keep the game going. In a saturated market, F2P works out great for a small number of games and really badly for the rest. For mobile apps, for example, the top few games do indeed makes a shit ton of money, but the overwhelming majority make virtually nothing because they could never attract enough people.
B2P / DLC relies on getting enough upfront sales to cover all costs plus make a profit. This is much easier to predict / plan for but assuming you've done your due diligence on market research, development costs etc, this is pretty easy to figure out whether this is a good business model or not.
B2P + Subscription relies on retention rates. As you're not dependant on upfront sales to recoup costs and make profit, you can potentially invest more money into the product and plan to recoup those costs over a longer period. This potentially allows you to create a better game than a B2P model because you've got more money but you have to design your game to retain players. Sadly, modern design trends (instant gratification) are terrible for retention, contributing to the decline of sub model.
Lets take a hypothetical example - a new AAA MMORPG that takes £300m to develop and market (costs).
F2P At a conversion rate of 3.75% (LoL) and average spend of £100 = 3m whales = 80m unique players At a conversion rate of 20% and average spend of £100 = 3m whales = 15m unique players At a conversion rate of 10% and average spend of £300 = 1m whales = 10m unique players
You can see how the figures go. I don't really know average spends of a whale and not many devs publish conversion rates, but for a AAA MMORPG budget you need an awful lot of players or a very high average spend to recoup your costs.
B2P If developer receives £10 per box sale, they need to sell 30m copies If developer receives £20 per box sale, they need to sell 15m copies If developer receives £30 per box sale, they need to sell 10m copies
You can quickly see that B2P by itself isn't profitable enough for a AAA budget MMORPG, especially not once you consider sales, distributor costs etc. Digital distribution certainly helps devs take home a bigger share of the sale price but, for a niche genre like MMOs you can't rely on 10m+ box sales.
B2P + Sub For simplicity, assuming sub price of £10pm.
If developer receives £10 per box sale, retains 25% for additional 6 months: (P x 10) + (0.25 x P x 60) = 300m => 10P + 15P = 300 => 25P = 300 => P = 12m box sales
If developer receives £20 per box sale, retains 5% for additional 12 months: (P x 20) + (0.05 x P x 120) = 300 => 20P + 6P = 300 => P = 11.5m box sales
Let get more complicated (please correct my maths if wrong)
Developer gets £20 per box sale Retains 50% for one additional month Retains 30% for additional two months (3 months total) Retains 25% for addition three months (6 months total) Retains 10% for additional 6 months (12 months total)
As you can see, even with relatively decent retention rates you still need an extremely large number of sales just to recoup your costs within a year. This is excluding ongoing costs, developing new expansions, free patches etc. If I remember rightly, SW:TOR sold roughly 2m copies within first few months but only retained ~25% after 6 months so it was nowhere near on target to recoup its costs in a timely manner so it had to search out other opportunities to get money in, hence the conversion to F2P + Sub + Cash Shop.
AAA MMORPGs just aren't profitable enough without having to fleece it's customers for extra money. The cost of development is just sooo high and retention rates nowhere near what they used to be 10 years ago
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr80 Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr5X Shaman
The real question is though, how do you feel about this, slippery Seldon? "In measuring pricing model preference, we found that 82% percent of US audiences, and 87% of UK audiences preferred games with a one time fee."
Your quote is what people are saying. My numbers are what people are doing.
Remind me: how loud do actions speak, relative to words?
Not really that deep of a comment when there's many times more F2P games being made.
The hidden truth here is that the amount of launches as F2P is ridiculously huge, considerably more than three times the market share. And yet, it's only at best a three times projected profit gain over B2P. If we were to be honest about the situation the amount of profit made across the market as compared to the amount of products made and cost, then the margin of profit is simply not that high.
It's only a narrow band of F2P games that are actually making a notable profit, which skews the reality of how much money a developer can expect top be making off the business model greatly.
Post edited by Deivos on
"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
Eh ...while its true that F2P games are usually "cheap," as in lower quality, thats usually just bad game design. My real issue is cash shops, which arent exclusive to F2P games anymore unfortunately.
Progress is progress I guess. I doubt cash shops will ever go away, much less release day DLC.
This won't make any difference, unless these companies change their B2P monetization schemes, otherwise it's still garbage with invasive cash shops and restrictions which reflects a F2P model.
AAA MMORPGs just aren't profitable enough without having to fleece it's customers for extra money. The cost of development is just sooo high and retention rates nowhere near what they used to be 10 years ago
I doubt it's happening quite yet, but I think it's inevitable.
We'll be able to tell soon enough. LawBreakers, Overwatch, Batlleborn are already out as B2P PVP arenas. We'll see if Fortnite, Paragon, and some of the others follow suit. It depends a lot on the reception this first wave gets.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Comments
Revenue comes from the game's business model.
With any given game design, a F2P version of the game will simply generate better revenue.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"In measuring pricing model preference, we found that 82% percent of US audiences, and 87% of UK audiences preferred games with a one time fee."
Spooky shit for someone with your preferences.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
1. I can't afford to play Free 2 Play (I can, but won't).
2. I do my best to pay the least amount in taxes because I hate deadbeats living off my productivity. F2P is no different.
Retention is influenced by the user experience across the board, and that includes the manner in which they feel their investment is being returned by the game.
With any given game, the question of it being F2P only generates higher revenue when multiple external factors are met. Foremost the initial user experience has to be good enough to hook a player and secondly the monetization and business model needs to not deter the user from considering the investment too high long run or alternatively simply lacking in value.
This is why if we take any example of the entirety of the game market, there are many games that simply fail because "F2P" only gets people through the door to take a glance.
"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
Statistics is just a story made up from data. People twist it any way they please.
The only reason the OP statistics might actually have some validity is all the silly developers flaunting their ~10% conversion rates for microtransactions. Kind of amazing how it all lines up.
I think they care about dominating the market share more than anything.
Your quote is what people are saying. My numbers are what people are doing.
Remind me: how loud do actions speak, relative to words?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
F2P relies on having a very large userbase so that the small conversion rate (of free players to whales) will still produce enough cash to keep the game going. In a saturated market, F2P works out great for a small number of games and really badly for the rest. For mobile apps, for example, the top few games do indeed makes a shit ton of money, but the overwhelming majority make virtually nothing because they could never attract enough people.
B2P / DLC relies on getting enough upfront sales to cover all costs plus make a profit. This is much easier to predict / plan for but assuming you've done your due diligence on market research, development costs etc, this is pretty easy to figure out whether this is a good business model or not.
B2P + Subscription relies on retention rates. As you're not dependant on upfront sales to recoup costs and make profit, you can potentially invest more money into the product and plan to recoup those costs over a longer period. This potentially allows you to create a better game than a B2P model because you've got more money but you have to design your game to retain players. Sadly, modern design trends (instant gratification) are terrible for retention, contributing to the decline of sub model.
Lets take a hypothetical example - a new AAA MMORPG that takes £300m to develop and market (costs).
F2P
At a conversion rate of 3.75% (LoL) and average spend of £100 = 3m whales = 80m unique players
At a conversion rate of 20% and average spend of £100 = 3m whales = 15m unique players
At a conversion rate of 10% and average spend of £300 = 1m whales = 10m unique players
You can see how the figures go. I don't really know average spends of a whale and not many devs publish conversion rates, but for a AAA MMORPG budget you need an awful lot of players or a very high average spend to recoup your costs.
B2P
If developer receives £10 per box sale, they need to sell 30m copies
If developer receives £20 per box sale, they need to sell 15m copies
If developer receives £30 per box sale, they need to sell 10m copies
You can quickly see that B2P by itself isn't profitable enough for a AAA budget MMORPG, especially not once you consider sales, distributor costs etc. Digital distribution certainly helps devs take home a bigger share of the sale price but, for a niche genre like MMOs you can't rely on 10m+ box sales.
B2P + Sub
For simplicity, assuming sub price of £10pm.
If developer receives £10 per box sale, retains 25% for additional 6 months:
(P x 10) + (0.25 x P x 60) = 300m => 10P + 15P = 300 => 25P = 300 => P = 12m box sales
If developer receives £20 per box sale, retains 5% for additional 12 months:
(P x 20) + (0.05 x P x 120) = 300 => 20P + 6P = 300 => P = 11.5m box sales
Let get more complicated (please correct my maths if wrong)
Developer gets £20 per box sale
Retains 50% for one additional month
Retains 30% for additional two months (3 months total)
Retains 25% for addition three months (6 months total)
Retains 10% for additional 6 months (12 months total)
(Px20) + (0.5xPx10) + (0.3xPx20) + (0.25xPx30) + (0.1xPx60) = 300
20P + 5P + 6.66P + 7.5P + 6P = 300
~45P = 300
=> 6.6m box sales
As you can see, even with relatively decent retention rates you still need an extremely large number of sales just to recoup your costs within a year. This is excluding ongoing costs, developing new expansions, free patches etc. If I remember rightly, SW:TOR sold roughly 2m copies within first few months but only retained ~25% after 6 months so it was nowhere near on target to recoup its costs in a timely manner so it had to search out other opportunities to get money in, hence the conversion to F2P + Sub + Cash Shop.
AAA MMORPGs just aren't profitable enough without having to fleece it's customers for extra money. The cost of development is just sooo high and retention rates nowhere near what they used to be 10 years ago
The hidden truth here is that the amount of launches as F2P is ridiculously huge, considerably more than three times the market share. And yet, it's only at best a three times projected profit gain over B2P. If we were to be honest about the situation the amount of profit made across the market as compared to the amount of products made and cost, then the margin of profit is simply not that high.
It's only a narrow band of F2P games that are actually making a notable profit, which skews the reality of how much money a developer can expect top be making off the business model greatly.
"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
Progress is progress I guess. I doubt cash shops will ever go away, much less release day DLC.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"