Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
A Majority of US MMO players play F2P games
nariusseldon
Member EpicPosts: 27,775
New study just came out:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27581/Study_US_Gamers_Spent_38_Billion_On_MMOs_in_2009.php
total MMO players in the US: 46M
total MMO players that never pay anything: 25M ~ 54% .. obviously these 25M players have no issue with F2P dispelling the misconceptions that a majority of players don't like F2P.
Total subs revenue (monthly + annual) = 1.8B + 580M = $2.38B. If you divide that by $15x12 .. roughly the annual sub fee for a MMO .. equal to ~13M. So 13M of the players are playing P2P MMO. Now, that is assuming each person has one account. The number goes DOWN if people have multiple accounts.
So the F2P players who pays NOTHING outnumber P2P players by around a factor of two. F2P players who pay something is roughly (46M - 25M - 13M) = 8M. (That is assuming no overlap between the P2P players and F2P players who pay something). So the actual number may be higher. But if you use the 8M number .. then only 8/(8+25) ~ 24% of the F2P players pay anything.
Even so, virtual currency & micro transaction total revenue is 740M+280M = $1.02B .. just over 1B dollar. So it is a sizable market.
Comments
Personally im in the range of both, i pay for games, but i play Free 2 Play when i have burnout or whatever;
PS - All mammals have nipples.
Get over it already.
Why are you assuming that those F2P players fork even as much as $15 a month? Something in my gut tells me that only a small percentage of players fork out 15 or more dollars per month for those games while the majority probably spend less than $10. I mean, they're there to save money otherwise they wouldn't hesitate to pay $15 bucks for a better made AAA P2P game.
I woudl say you are not uncommon. I do the same. So may be the actual F2P population should be revised up and include some of those 13M who do P2P.
We know the total F2P population to be between 25M (who never pays anything .. must be f2p) and 46M.
No i did not. Read carefully. I only assume the P2P players folks out $15 a month which is the standard sub fee. There is NO assumption about F2P players.
We only know that they are between 25M (those who pay nothing) and 46M (total) and they spent a total of over $1B. There is NO calculation of per head spending.
a good % of that 25M dont "play" F2P games, they "hop" from F2P to F2P on monthly basis looking for a game that doesnt suck majorly, finding out that the new game they joined is as craptastic, grindy and real-life-money-dependant as the previous, to quit and join another F2P game...and start again.
that survey tells me that 25M people still havent realized that the cake is a lie, and there is no free lunch.
I'd be extremely interested in a research about the average time that players stick to a single game
I bet that a LARGE portion of the P2P sector have stayed for a period longer than 1 year in at least one P2P game , while for F2P players the average staying in a game is a couple months or less.
You P2P players ASSUME way too much. Most people are like me, changing from F2P to F2P, and never find any reason to go to P2P. Why? Because 1) There are way way more F2P's out there than P2P's, 2) F2P's cover more genres than P2P's, from FPS, RTS, to sports/dancing/racing etc. and 3) F2P's give people freedom and choices.
I've been playing a MMO for six years, and I have yet to touch a P2P. Yeah, I'm one of majority of people out there.
You P2P players need to look hard into mirror and ask yourselves this question: why can't over-the-counter painkillers be enough for a morphine addict? There lies the answer to why most people don't give a damn about P2P's "quality" over F2P's.
...
So I guess along with the "themepark" vs "sandbox", "hardcore" vs "casual" and "PvP" versus "carebear"... now "F2P" and "P2P" has turned into yet another version of "us versus them"?
Does everything have to become a frigging popularity contest, or a quetion of "who's better", or "who's more right?"
How about a new contest over "who couldn't care less either way?"
FFS... I have my opinions about F2P, just as I do about a lot of things and I'll debate them all day long; but good grief.. if I ever start posting about how my preferred choice of whatever is "more popular" or anything similar... just shoot me. Or... walk me outside to experience "real life" and "things that actually matter" until I snap out of it, because I'd have probably lost all perception of what it is.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
There's a problem with this figure and the study in general. Are they considering games such as Crossfire, Blackshot, WarRock (and so on) as F2P MMOs? If they are, I can see why "54%" of people don't pay.....
OTC analgesics do not bind to opiod-recepters in the brain. Morphine addicts are physiologically addicted to morphine. It's not a psychological dependence. I don't understand how your analogy relates to your point.
I would venture that many of those F2P gamers happen to be children that don't have a bank account.
--------
"Chemistry: 'We do stuff in lab that would be a felony in your garage.'"
The most awesomest after school special T-shirt:
Front: UNO Chemistry Club
Back: /\OH --> Bad Decisions
You know the only factor that matters for the industry is the revenue, right? And P2P gaming gets 11% + 47% + 15% of the revenue pizza, totalizing 73% of the total revenue (monthly, annual and boxed product/client fee).
Everyone plays for their own reasons, but the quality will be where the majority of the pizza is. If you don't seek quality, it's fine, it's not like human nature makes mostly objective and rational decisions (these are games, it's perfectly acceptable not to care about most of the details, even though being here in a MMORPG-specific forum already makes you care more than the average (which is the reason the P2P-to-F2P user ratio here is way different than the study), we rely mostly on instincts. Obviously there are "objective and rational" arguments for playing F2P, but most will reside at the meaning of the misleading term, the potentially flawed "Free" idea (for those that care enough about their entertainment to think about it, you can't see flaws in what you aren't thinking about).
Study: U.S. Gamers Spent $3.8 Billion On MMOs in 2009
by Eric Caoili
5 comments
Share RSS
March 9, 2010
Study: U.S. Gamers Spent $3.8 Billion On MMOs in 2009
Advertisement
U.S. gamers spent $3.8 billion on massively multiplayer online games in 2009, almost 15 times more than other substantial MMO markets in Europe, according to a new study.
Consumer data from Today's Gamers MMO Focus Report by Gamesindustry.com and TNS indicates that the number of MMO players in the U.S. has reached 46 million, 46 percent (21 million) of which paid to play online games; the rest, around 25 million gamers, play MMOs without spending any money. The average paying MMO player spent around $15.10 per month on their games.
The report points out that Blizzard's World of Warcraft has the most number of players in the U.S. out of all the MMOs it tracked, just in front of NeoPets and Club Penguin. Other MMOs in the top five include Disney ToonTown and RuneScape.
The study also breaks down the $3.8 billion total spent on MMOs in 2009: 47 percent ($1.8 billion) was spent on monthly subscriptions, 15 percent ($580 million) on annual subscriptions, 19 percent ($740 million) on virtual currency, 8 percent ($280 million) on direct microtransactions, and 11 percent ($400 million) on the initial boxed product or client download.
this is the article(the part for usa at least!)
neopets?
club penguin?
disney toontown?
runescape?
are the main mmo(aside from the top <wow)
so this means that the rest of the mmo market is almost non existant period be it f2p or pay to play
outch that a big slap !good to know for the game dev. at least they know where to aim their futur mmo!
Er, good train of thought right til the point where you inferred that real life doesn't involve popularity contests.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So? Game hopping -> play more games .. there is no reason why that is a good form of entertainment. And where is the lie? I have been hopping (and playing DDO on and off) for > 1 year .. it is still free .. tell me where is the catch .. tell me tell me ...
OTC analgesics do not bind to opiod-recepters in the brain. Morphine addicts are physiologically addicted to morphine. It's not a psychological dependence. I don't understand how your analogy relates to your point.
I would venture that many of those F2P gamers happen to be children that don't have a bank account.
It's funny how you fail to understand an admittedly vague, but fairly simple to understand analogy and then manage prove the other posters point perfectly by making a baseless assumption.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
The problem with your analogy, Azmundai, is that it presumes addiction rather than responsible choice. Yes, it is bad to be addicted to needing a stronger / better dose, but there is nothing wrong with choosing something stronger / better if you can afford to do so responsibly. Given a choice between playing a F2P MMOs and playing no MMO at all, I would choose the latter.
Cryptic is trying a Customer Development approach to MMO creation.
Well at least F2P is free for 25M (and 54%) of those players. Free for the majority .. it is not that misleading. Apparently most people have the control (or constraint) of not being sucked into item shops and can enjoy a free game.
And yes, only 27% of the market but it is over $1B ... so if developers are still making PC games (which is less than 1/10 of the game software market), they probably will want a piece of this 1B market.
I think we all need to care about our entertainment is whether we are getting our money worth and as long as the game is somewhat fun, i suppose f2p is worth it.
I think there is some messed up numbers in there.Last time i did all the homework i am sure it was around that same 46 million,but that WAS the P2P numbers not total.There is no way in earth you could ever come within 5% accuracy of trying to predict F2P accounts lol.
I believe it was around 12 million total when Wow came out then another 10-15 million MMO players joined over the next year,and now is the 46 million total.It is actually not very many when you think about it,i bet Silkroad online had that many RMT botters alone lmao...j/k.
I think developers need to realize that the Total numbers of subscribers in MMO's is not very big so their chance at making it big is not really that good.Many of those subscribers are actually the same people that buy and sub to several games.In reality including RMT/botters/duo accounts and removing the same people ,we may really only have around 20 million actual people.There is actually a fair number of people operating 5 accounts,i have watched multi boxers in Wow and other games doing this.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It wasn't my analogy. That being said, it's pretty childish to simply discredit a post which was pretty easy to understand just because the analogy wasn't up to someone's standards.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
These numbers just don't sound legit, 47million is a lot of people. I'd be surprised if that many people play MMO's...maybe have signed up for one during the year. But definitely not playing...
most are young if you check the top 5 game club penguin etc 4 game in the top 5 are for 15 years old and yonger
That is why people do STUDIES on this thing. Go look up the reference. I would much rather believe them (industry research sites) than you guessing in your room.
That study was about all MMOs, not just MMORPGs. On the top 5 games listed there were three RPGs (WoW, Runescape, Toontown), one pet raising simulator (NeoPets) and one 3D chatroom with minigames (Club Penguin). Also it was not stated how long one does need to play to be counted as a player.
I think it's reasonable to assume, that someone who plays a virtual world primarily meant to be online -chatroom is less likely to pay for it than someone who plays one of the F2P MMORPGs, and that those players who just tested one game (if you play WoW trial you should be counted as MMO player, right?) are much less likely to pay for the game than those who have spent hunderds of hours playing it. Because of that, significant number of those who played an MMO but didn't pay for it are likely players who didn't even play any F2P MMORPG. I think it's not reasonable to use the survey as any kind of indication, of wether people usually can play F2P MMORPG past the early levels without paying for the game.
It's not wrong to have opinions. But post like the OPs simply goes to show the common misconception many "P2P Gamers" have regarding the F2P model. Informing the non-informed. An opinion based on false information is not an opinion, it's a delusion and many gamers can't make the difference "because they played Perfect World" or "Allods".
I mean, my opinion regarding F2Ps are they that are a bunch of grindy games, lack content and originality, are extremely boring etc. But I know there are many exception to these, which also happens to be the current F2P MMORPGs that I play.
---
Oh and for the record (because I know someone will most likely find a way to claim BS on my post) I don't just play F2Ps, I play/played several P2P titles such as WoW, LotRO, WAR and AoC and am currently subscribed to DarkFall.
OTC analgesics do not bind to opiod-recepters in the brain. Morphine addicts are physiologically addicted to morphine. It's not a psychological dependence. I don't understand how your analogy relates to your point.
I would venture that many of those F2P gamers happen to be children that don't have a bank account.
It's funny how you fail to understand an admittedly vague, but fairly simple to understand analogy and then manage prove the other posters point perfectly by making a baseless assumption.
I never once said I was taking issues with people assuming anything and he didn't admit that he was making a vague analogy. He just pretty much went into a condecending rage at the P2Pers, and I didn't find his analogy to be that simple to understand because from the way I read it he was making too statements that appear to have an opposite relation.
Morphine generally has a much greater effect on managing pain than OTC painkillers therefore it is of a higher "quality" when compared to them. A person that needs morphine will not be satisfied with OTC drugs. The poster I quoted said, "why can't over-the-counter painkillers be enough for a morphine addict? There lies the answer to why most people don't give a damn about P2P's "quality" over F2P's." The way this is phrased implied that morphine was equivelent to f2p games (because morphine users would not need to even worry about the quality of OTC drugs since they will never use them), which makes the point he is trying to make unclear.
--------
"Chemistry: 'We do stuff in lab that would be a felony in your garage.'"
The most awesomest after school special T-shirt:
Front: UNO Chemistry Club
Back: /\OH --> Bad Decisions
and this one time they came out with this study that showed eating prunes caused wrinkles
OMG!!
ps the control was teenages and the test group was elderly