Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Death of the F2P
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Sadly I would have to disagree with the OP
http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/01/18/led-by-mobile-and-free-to-play-u-s-digital-sales-see-big-gains/
F2P is result of game income drop as a result investors lose interest in game income is low development team low and updates are focused mostly on cash shop to milk some $$
F2P is worst model
Still Subscription is a challenging model and if your game is another old WOW copy paste of witch peopel are bored of game fast will drop to F2P dead game.
Plus when I think that game is not long term based I rely don't want to spend my money on it.
I rely hope some one there to build another TITAN in mmo market but witch a completly new concept
Is this an exercise in wishful thinking ?
Most of the online games i playe are alot bigger and more complex than some of the single players, so it seems that you get more content for the original $60 than you would with a single player... (not always but most of the time )
What? Where? You live on the same planet? Proven by what? Which free mmo is worse than which P2P? F2P games are the most played ones, quality of most I played is pretty amazing... Define quality, what exactly are you missing? Is it gameplay, graphics? Compared to what? Give some examples. Which particular titles require you to pay for making more than one character? How much % of titles have that limitation and how they compare to 10s of thers that doesn't? You just exaggerated and made up so many things it would be nice to show some examples....
I would first and foremost like to congratulate the OP on being so far removed from reality that he felt like creating this farce of a thread. Right up there with climate change deniers in terms of either trolling or pure ignorance.
F2P revenue is up 45% from last year and is now making 2.9 billion dollars a year. Top earning F2P titles such as Dungeon Fighter Online ($426 million) and League of Legends ($624 million) both earn more than double what the biggest subscription based MMO - World of Warcraft - makes ($213 million).
So where is this evidence of F2P dying? Looks pretty sustainable to me. Two new games are releasing with subscriptions? Thats nice, unless they double World of Warcraft's subscription numbers (7 million at the moment) they still wont be earning more than Dungeon Fighter Online.
If you like subscription models thats fine - just say so, I'm sure there is a decent market out there for people who think like yourself and there will continue to be games to cater to that, but lets not live in a fantasy world where F2P is going away. It is doing extremely well, contrary to what your 'industry experts' think.
There is a reason why there are both F2P and subscription model out there. Because both works.
Some players like F2P and some like sub model.
The main problem for subscription model is the game need to be actual good. Since if people can play a better game for free, they won't pay a sub.
The reason you pay anything for a game is the experience of playing the game. It doesn't matter if you just buy the box, buy the box and pay a sub, just use a cash shop, buy a box and use a cash shop or buy a box, pay a sub and use a cash shop all at the same time. It all amounts to money going to the developer for the game. The monetization model used will just depend on the players that the game attracts.
There's a post up there about console players not being cool with subscriptions or cash shops, and that makes sense. To sell games to those players, a box price with very optional cash shop purchases is the way to go because they aren't going to be that ameniable to paying for a subscription on top of the subscription they already have to pay just to play their games online. PC gamers are a whole different story. They are ameniable to many things, but it really seems to depend on which game(s) they play. WoW players are very ameniable to subscriptions while LoL players are not. A developer who can pick the correct monetization model for their game before it releases will make the most amount of money possible for their game. Sometimes the correct model is P2P followed by some manner of F2P.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
That being said, most western mmorpg start out as pay 2 play so they can cash in first. I suppose ESO and wildstar want to do the same.
Actually the economics of it say they will continue to operate the F2P model as long as they can.
It mostly has to do what economists call the "economic surplus". In short, if I find a subscription game to be worth $25 a month, but the sub is $15 a month then I, the consumer has received a $10 surplus. (like I said "in short)
There is 1 model of business where the producer is able to obtain all the surplus. That model? A Perfectly Price Discriminating Monopoly. They obtain all the surplus because they are able to charge each and every consumer exactly what they are willing to pay. I had thought that this was only a hypothetical situation. I was wrong.
F2P games operate as these kinds of monopolies. They are a monopoly since each game can be considered a single product provided by a single producer. They Perfectly Price Discriminate, by charging from $0 to "as much as your willingness". So no consumer receive any surplus, it all goes to the producer.
The key to understanding is that in a Perfectly Competitive Market the profit will be $0, not to say they aren't making money salaries are included as part of the cost curve. When a company charges a sub they have to compete with all the other games that charge a sub. also they loose access to any whose willingness to pay is less than the sub. By going to the F2P model they are able to carve out a small unique market, their game, where they are the monopolist. This allows them access to all the surplus and larger profits.
Right I know, TLDR, and almost no one like economics save a few of us, and I need graphs and whatnots to have a clearer message but, this is why I have always disliked the F2P model and now I can explain why.
Have a nice day,
Four0Six
There has been a massive misnomer in the MMORPG industry, & I will share with you some metrics that JS let loose in a close door meeting.
Paraphrase: *
*That Free to Play games are played by EVERYONE, often times on many accounts. Not only that, but a single person might have 5~8 accounts (He stressed "own" the accounts, not "play" them) with several different games, but these people spends very little time in any of them.
These games are advertised as FREE, so why not register for every F2P game..? More importantly, those registered accounts do not equate to anything what-so-ever. They are just an indication of what artistic style, or stylization, or game mechanic that the masses gravitate towards.
That there is no real, sustainable revenues in a FREE game, because there is no sustainable customer.*
And that^ is exactly what has happened, & what has skewed the whole MMORPG metrics.
Not only that, but people who don't play MMORPG sign up for Free ones because they want to get their feet wet, but these people are learning the ropes (grouping and playing), not at all interested in ITEMS.
This skew the actual people playing any particular game and the over-all industry metrics. There is actually 70% less F2P MMO players, than actual. Due to massive amounts of duplicate accounts.
Steam: Neph
Think were talking about MMos.
Thats nice.. now which f2p MMo tittle is earning that sort of profits.
Of course this neglects the fact that someone would be inherently happier playing a game with an economic surplus. If I play a game that I like with a $15 sub that I would have been willing to pay $50 per month for, the odds that I am going to continue playing longer is much higher.
Plus there is the fact that even if you are willing to spend $50 per month on a game, doesn't mean you are going to. Plus you have the whole possibility that you overspend in a "Free" game. This has happened in games and then you count things up and say -- naw too much and quit because you went overbudget.
Then there is the perception that it "requires" $100 per month to be competitive. This is especially relevant in games where they give out prizes to the top 32 in pvp type events. You just aren't going to place regardless of skill unless you hit x payment level and even then winning will be a $$$$ contest.
Usually games shake out into a few classes of player:
1) The FTP player who will NEVER pay -- you aren't going to get money out of this player.
2) The FTP player who will buy occasionally for convenience only. The player who will buy a $4 pack to double their storage then nothing more.
3) The subscription player in a FTP. This player is trying to budget $X into the game.
4) The whale who will pay what it takes to win.
The problem with most FTP games is they do not protect the #3s from the #4s. It is the $25-$70 per month budget #3s that leave a game when the #4s become too powerful.
Technically a FTP game would do well to have servers with 1 2 and 4s on it (where the whales can easily trounce all) and servers where there are only #3s. There is nothing that says you couldn't have a hybrid where the cash shop is available on most servers, but there are subscription servers as well.
Thats a great comeback, but Dungeon Fighter Online is a MMO, which is why I focused on that rather than LoL, because I knew some clown would point out that LoL isn't a MMO. Also Maple Story and World of Tanks are also MMOs and earn more than WoW (i$326 million and $372 million respectively). Guess that screws that defence doesn't it?
If were lowering the bar on whats considered a MMo these days.. might as well put games like Call of duty into the MMo camp.
Battlefield 3/4 has more players per server and much larger maps than WoT.. has unlocks and persistent upgrades. is that a MMo too?
P2P isn't going anywhere and neither is F2P (esp given the very broad net people cast this payment model under).
Those who claim one or the other are fooling themselves, repeating it over and over isn't going to make either come true. P2P has been on it's way out for well over a decade now, and anything with free stamped on it will always find people regardless of the validity of the claim.
I am always confused though why people feel the need to fight over which payment model they want to get lose their money to. Both are about monetizing the player base. Surely having more of both is better for us, the gamers (more choice a bad thing?).
Yes it is, and I can't believe people have actually tried to defend it.
Anyone can argue that p2p is better for the consumer. It's a personal choice what you like better. Money on the other hand is not something the world just takes wild guesses about. People care more about where your money goes than they do about you. So for someone to make wild claims about a multi billion dollar industry with no facts or data that goes against everything the industry numbers actually say...should be something people laugh at...not open their mouths and nod to.
Is it free to play ?
Is it reliveant to the "death of free to play "
Those people who PAY to Win are in a microcosm. That money they have spent, is only good for as long as they are playing the flavor of the month.
Whilst this statement is very very true, it should also be true when it comes to articles and data being twisted to fit arguments that they do not apply to, or support (something worryingly common in this forum). However if it fits people's existing beliefs then people will nod and agree no matter how thinly veiled people's agendas or biases are.