Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
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
They only need to fleece the whales.
Just like Robin hood steal from the rich and give to the poor
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
They only need to fleece the whales.
Just like Robin hood steal from the rich and give to the poor
nah the "rich" gives up their money willingly, in this case. There is no coercion.
Why Devs Are Backing Away From Free-to-Play 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. Despite the industry’s focus on esports, alternative pricing models, and new ways to experience content, gamers still prefer games with a single upfront cost.
They stated in some genres like shooters and stuff that had no real place being F2P in the first place.
Why Devs Are Backing Away From Free-to-Play 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. Despite the industry’s focus on esports, alternative pricing models, and new ways to experience content, gamers still prefer games with a single upfront cost.
They stated in some genres like shooters and stuff that had no real place being F2P in the first place.
If buy to play, then game will milk this and go f2p if it is an mmorpg. If game is just a shooter or just an rpg, then game will have DLC, if game is good I buy DLC if game is boring I will pass. If game decides to implement cash shop I leave instantly.
If sub, then game will stay sub so long as in the black, then go f2p cash grab, then drop support and move on. Only one game is currently successfully running a sub based game, that is World of Warcraft.
If buy to play, then game will milk this and go f2p if it is an mmorpg. If game is just a shooter or just an rpg, then game will have DLC, if game is good I buy DLC if game is boring I will pass. If game decides to implement cash shop I leave instantly.
If sub, then game will stay sub so long as in the black, then go f2p cash grab, then drop support and move on. Only one game is currently successfully running a sub based game, that is World of Warcraft.
If buy to play, then game will milk this and go f2p if it is an mmorpg. If game is just a shooter or just an rpg, then game will have DLC, if game is good I buy DLC if game is boring I will pass. If game decides to implement cash shop I leave instantly.
If sub, then game will stay sub so long as in the black, then go f2p cash grab, then drop support and move on. Only one game is currently successfully running a sub based game, that is World of Warcraft.
I'm the same.
Free is expensive, isn't?
Yes it is. The thing is, I play video games because they are an affordable form of entertainment. For the money though, the list of things I would rather do is pretty long. So when video games think they can raise their prices and I will just pay it, they are wrong. I really don't care that much about stupid video games, I just used them as a time filler for entertainment for a few years while I save money to build a house. I would rather spend my time fishing, hunting, motorcycling, cycling, camping, traveling, but all of those hobbies turn out to be way more expensive than video games. Wow cost me $15 a month its the best deal for entertainment pound for pound one can get. These games come in here, say yeah were f2p, but then to be competitive you have to spend $50/month. $50/month is peanuts, but even peanuts aren't worth video games. The industry needs to just realize gaming is a poor mans entertainment medium. Raise the prices and still have a population of players? Then it's just a dumb mans entertainment medium.
If buy to play, then game will milk this and go f2p if it is an mmorpg. If game is just a shooter or just an rpg, then game will have DLC, if game is good I buy DLC if game is boring I will pass. If game decides to implement cash shop I leave instantly.
If sub, then game will stay sub so long as in the black, then go f2p cash grab, then drop support and move on. Only one game is currently successfully running a sub based game, that is World of Warcraft.
I'm the same.
Free is expensive, isn't?
Yes it is. The thing is, I play video games because they are an affordable form of entertainment. For the money though, the list of things I would rather do is pretty long. So when video games think they can raise their prices and I will just pay it, they are wrong. I really don't care that much about stupid video games, I just used them as a time filler for entertainment for a few years while I save money to build a house. I would rather spend my time fishing, hunting, motorcycling, cycling, camping, traveling, but all of those hobbies turn out to be way more expensive than video games. Wow cost me $15 a month its the best deal for entertainment pound for pound one can get. These games come in here, say yeah were f2p, but then to be competitive you have to spend $50/month. $50/month is peanuts, but even peanuts aren't worth video games. The industry needs to just realize gaming is a poor mans entertainment medium. Raise the prices and still have a population of players? Then it's just a dumb mans entertainment medium.
Oh, I'm with ya.
MMORPGs replaced drinking out in town. Compared to my tabs, $15 was chump change and quickly became an extra hobby for me. Also saved some bank over time.
Pushing everything else about F2P aside, I never got why people are unwilling to pay $15 per month, but will pay double that in a cash shop. I don't believe in playing an MMORPG if I'm limited access. I would rather pay the $15 to experience it all. There is nothing worse than forming a group with guildmates and they can't go due to F2P.
A sub costs 50 cents per day. Lots of people spend more than that, texting per day.
Lol F2P games is still here they just realised gamer crowd will buy anything and it is safe to call game B2P now, and put dirty cash shop there and keep support at minimal and of course premium account service for additional $14.95 for your initially F2P game
These companies can go with b2p and they will make some money but guaranteed it cuts their customer base down considerably.
It may cut down on their player numbers, but it will probably benefit their player spending per capita. Which means their bandwidth costs are generating a better ratio of revenue.
With modern game design and mega-server tech, games no longer have to attract hordes of "filler players" to make the game world look populated.
These companies can go with b2p and they will make some money but guaranteed it cuts their customer base down considerably.
It may cut down on their player numbers, but it will probably benefit their player spending per capita. Which means their bandwidth costs are generating a better ratio of revenue.
With modern game design and mega-server tech, games no longer have to attract hordes of "filler players" to make the game world look populated.
Bandwidth cost per player is trivial. They want a huge population NOT because they want the world to look populated (who cares about the world anymore?). They want a huge population so that they can fish for the whales.
Bandwidth cost per player is trivial. They want a huge population NOT because they want the world to look populated (who cares about the world anymore?). They want a huge population so that they can fish for the whales.
Having a low or decreasing population is a death sentence for MMOs. They definitely want the free players even if they are sure they won't spend anything.
Not anymore. They can always make another b2p short term MMO. No one says you have to make long term money if you can make a lot in short terms. Single player games do that all the time. MMO can learn to do that too.
Having a low or decreasing population is a death sentence for MMOs. They definitely want the free players even if they are sure they won't spend anything.
Citation needed.
The normal population graph for all games is vaguely bell-shaped, usually with a short growth period to the max population, followed by a long decline. Having "decreasing" population isn't a death sentence for a game, it's the norm. (Here's one example.)
Let's not say objectively false things just because we're unfamiliar with how the games industry works, yeah?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Having a low or decreasing population is a death sentence for MMOs. They definitely want the free players even if they are sure they won't spend anything.
Citation needed.
The normal population graph for all games is vaguely bell-shaped, usually with a short growth period to the max population, followed by a long decline. Having "decreasing" population isn't a death sentence for a game, it's the norm. (Here's one example.)
Let's not say objectively false things just because we're unfamiliar with how the games industry works, yeah?
To be fair your counterpoint didn't actually address or refute his claim.
The case that people seeing a declining population/player base in a game and use it as a deciding factor is not uncommon, and it a contributing factor to many titles downward trends as once they start declining it's rare for that to stop.
So lets not say objectively irrational things just because we're trying to pretend to be familiar with something, yeah?
"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 about a population that's decreasing faster or for longer than the "norm" or games with a peak population that's relatively low? I know lots of games that potential new players pass because they have low population. I hope you didn't think since they named the game "f2p" you were getting something for nothing.
Population decreasing faster than normal means either a failure on the install (ads/marketing) or retention (game design, server stability) sides of things. And yes, those are bad. (But it's a little ridiculous to pretend that players have good perception of which games are decreasing faster than normal. Players usually don't even understand the typical boom/bust curve of player populations, so every time I've observed a player learning about this common trait of games they've perceived it as 'faster than normal' and tossed around hyperbole like "dying game".)
Low peak population is just weak marketing. (Marketing may be weakened by the game's premise/visuals not being compelling, but it's all just marketing: it's whether enough players are told about the game in a way to get them into the game.) But sure, I didn't disagree with low pop being a "death sentence" for an MMORPG (even though I think that's a little exaggerated.) I only said that decreasing pop is normal.
Very few players pass on games because they think the game has low population. Most are wrong. (Either they're wrong about their assumptions of the game's playerbase, or they're wrong in their assumption it won't be fun without a huge playerbase, or both.) Their being wrong doesn't mean those mistakes don't hurt the game of course (right or wrong, they're not paying.) Which is why non-MMO game designs are stronger (you can still have an MMO shared world, but if you aren't providing ways your game can be enjoyed solo or in small groups then you're creating a game that's unenjoyable without a huge playerbase, and if that's not an outright mistake then it's at least a very big risk to take.)
F2P by definition provides the majority of gameplay for free, so yes I always get something for nothing in F2P games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Simple truth is, if F2P were working, we would be seeing more of them made like we did a few years back, but that's not happening because the F2P model blows, as I said it did years ago.
Now we're seeing intense PC games coming down the pipe, like Star Citizen, which pushes the limits of the PC and gives up back many of the MMO mechanics we loved from the old days.
F2P by definition provides the majority of gameplay for free, so yes I always get something for nothing in F2P games.
Regret for free isn't usually a selling point.
The curve of players leaving games is an effect that perpetuates itself once it's started. Even if a player is unaware of it globally, the impact on the userbase can still be felt. On top of that, the people leaving are, you know, people. It's not a magic number going up and down, it's humans that have friends and family and communicate both inter-personally and within game.
When that happens and some decides it's time to move on, it's not just them moving on in that regard. It's a choice that impacts those that person has played with and gives each other player incentive to move on as well. The net effect is that over time a declining population directly impacts a player's perception of playing a game because even if they don't know the numbers, they can still see what state the game is in and feel the effect of others leaving the game has on their investment.
"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
Simple truth is, if F2P were working, we would be seeing more of them made like we did a few years back, but that's not happening because the F2P model blows, as I said it did years ago.
Now we're seeing intense PC games coming down the pipe, like Star Citizen, which pushes the limits of the PC and gives up back many of the MMO mechanics we loved from the old days.
What about actual true things, like:
We are seeing "more of them made".
Currently they're making more money than non-F2P games.
In the future they'll be making even more money than non-F2P games (I believe that site I linked earlier said 75% of game revenue will be F2P within a few years.)
Why would you choose to latch onto a few isolated cases, ignoring the bigger picture? (Oh yeah, I guess that's just how confirmation bias works.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Simple truth is, if F2P were working, we would be seeing more of them made like we did a few years back, but that's not happening because the F2P model blows, as I said it did years ago.
Now we're seeing intense PC games coming down the pipe, like Star Citizen, which pushes the limits of the PC and gives up back many of the MMO mechanics we loved from the old days.
What about actual true things, like:
We are seeing "more of them made".
Currently they're making more money than non-F2P games.
In the future they'll be making even more money than non-F2P games (I believe that site I linked earlier said 75% of game revenue will be F2P within a few years.)
Why would you choose to latch onto a few isolated cases, ignoring the bigger picture? (Oh yeah, I guess that's just how confirmation bias works.)
As I said, F2P games are NOT being made like they were just a few years ago, because they know it's failed. More PC games are coming out than before and most of them are subscription, also up from a few years ago, unless your comparing apples to oranges, like candy crush to camelot unchained....lol Many gamers also said the console was taking over, but that turns out to be wrong as well, because we got some next generation shit coming down the pipe for PC's that will require top gear and there are lots of players willing to pay for it. Speaking of confirmation bias, you should read your comment again.
Payment model means little, no matter the model used they will do their best to milk it for the most money they can. F2P has been just that. Nothing has changed, we want games and game companies want our money. Some will be fair and other companies will fleas us.
Simple truth is, if F2P were working, we would be seeing more of them made like we did a few years back, but that's not happening because the F2P model blows, as I said it did years ago.
Now we're seeing intense PC games coming down the pipe, like Star Citizen, which pushes the limits of the PC and gives up back many of the MMO mechanics we loved from the old days.
What about actual true things, like:
We are seeing "more of them made".
Currently they're making more money than non-F2P games.
In the future they'll be making even more money than non-F2P games (I believe that site I linked earlier said 75% of game revenue will be F2P within a few years.)
Why would you choose to latch onto a few isolated cases, ignoring the bigger picture? (Oh yeah, I guess that's just how confirmation bias works.)
Several corrections to this.
Seeing more of them made and seeing more of them succeed is two entirely different things. There is a very thin sliver of F2P titles that are seeing good profit and an even slimmer margin that sees the runaway profit that has skewed some developer/publisher expectations on profit.
Currently a select few are generating a ton of money, while the rest are making little to no profit.
In the future that expected shift is only because there is an inundation of titles still using that business model. When that shifts so too will that revenue percentage.
Latching onto a few isolated cases would be what you are doing by claiming the mass profit that has been garnered by the top tier of the F2P model which has skewed the profit charts is representative of F2P as a whole.
The only point at which your claim might have merit is that people are happy to play worse games if they are free, which gives more opportunity to make them pay for minor things.
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
Comments
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Just like Robin hood
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
If f2p, then game is just a joke.
If buy to play, then game will milk this and go f2p if it is an mmorpg. If game is just a shooter or just an rpg, then game will have DLC, if game is good I buy DLC if game is boring I will pass. If game decides to implement cash shop I leave instantly.
If sub, then game will stay sub so long as in the black, then go f2p cash grab, then drop support and move on. Only one game is currently successfully running a sub based game, that is World of Warcraft.
Free is expensive, isn't?
MMORPGs replaced drinking out in town. Compared to my tabs, $15 was chump change and quickly became an extra hobby for me. Also saved some bank over time.
Pushing everything else about F2P aside, I never got why people are unwilling to pay $15 per month, but will pay double that in a cash shop. I don't believe in playing an MMORPG if I'm limited access. I would rather pay the $15 to experience it all. There is nothing worse than forming a group with guildmates and they can't go due to F2P.
A sub costs 50 cents per day. Lots of people spend more than that, texting per day.
With modern game design and mega-server tech, games no longer have to attract hordes of "filler players" to make the game world look populated.
- The normal population graph for all games is vaguely bell-shaped, usually with a short growth period to the max population, followed by a long decline. Having "decreasing" population isn't a death sentence for a game, it's the norm. (Here's one example.)
Let's not say objectively false things just because we're unfamiliar with how the games industry works, yeah?"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The case that people seeing a declining population/player base in a game and use it as a deciding factor is not uncommon, and it a contributing factor to many titles downward trends as once they start declining it's rare for that to stop.
So lets not say objectively irrational things just because we're trying to pretend to be familiar with something, yeah?
"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
Low peak population is just weak marketing. (Marketing may be weakened by the game's premise/visuals not being compelling, but it's all just marketing: it's whether enough players are told about the game in a way to get them into the game.) But sure, I didn't disagree with low pop being a "death sentence" for an MMORPG (even though I think that's a little exaggerated.) I only said that decreasing pop is normal.
Very few players pass on games because they think the game has low population. Most are wrong. (Either they're wrong about their assumptions of the game's playerbase, or they're wrong in their assumption it won't be fun without a huge playerbase, or both.) Their being wrong doesn't mean those mistakes don't hurt the game of course (right or wrong, they're not paying.) Which is why non-MMO game designs are stronger (you can still have an MMO shared world, but if you aren't providing ways your game can be enjoyed solo or in small groups then you're creating a game that's unenjoyable without a huge playerbase, and if that's not an outright mistake then it's at least a very big risk to take.)
F2P by definition provides the majority of gameplay for free, so yes I always get something for nothing in F2P games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Now we're seeing intense PC games coming down the pipe, like Star Citizen, which pushes the limits of the PC and gives up back many of the MMO mechanics we loved from the old days.
The curve of players leaving games is an effect that perpetuates itself once it's started. Even if a player is unaware of it globally, the impact on the userbase can still be felt. On top of that, the people leaving are, you know, people. It's not a magic number going up and down, it's humans that have friends and family and communicate both inter-personally and within game.
When that happens and some decides it's time to move on, it's not just them moving on in that regard. It's a choice that impacts those that person has played with and gives each other player incentive to move on as well. The net effect is that over time a declining population directly impacts a player's perception of playing a game because even if they don't know the numbers, they can still see what state the game is in and feel the effect of others leaving the game has on their investment.
"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
- We are seeing "more of them made".
- Currently they're making more money than non-F2P games.
- In the future they'll be making even more money than non-F2P games (I believe that site I linked earlier said 75% of game revenue will be F2P within a few years.)
Why would you choose to latch onto a few isolated cases, ignoring the bigger picture? (Oh yeah, I guess that's just how confirmation bias works.)"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
More PC games are coming out than before and most of them are subscription, also up from a few years ago, unless your comparing apples to oranges, like candy crush to camelot unchained....lol
Many gamers also said the console was taking over, but that turns out to be wrong as well, because we got some next generation shit coming down the pipe for PC's that will require top gear and there are lots of players willing to pay for it.
Speaking of confirmation bias, you should read your comment again.
- Seeing more of them made and seeing more of them succeed is two entirely different things. There is a very thin sliver of F2P titles that are seeing good profit and an even slimmer margin that sees the runaway profit that has skewed some developer/publisher expectations on profit.
- Currently a select few are generating a ton of money, while the rest are making little to no profit.
- In the future that expected shift is only because there is an inundation of titles still using that business model. When that shifts so too will that revenue percentage.
Latching onto a few isolated cases would be what you are doing by claiming the mass profit that has been garnered by the top tier of the F2P model which has skewed the profit charts is representative of F2P as a whole.The only point at which your claim might have merit is that people are happy to play worse games if they are free, which gives more opportunity to make them pay for minor things.
"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