You all know that chart just shows how much money f2p games earned right ? it's not a comparison to p2p in any way. If people want to argue that f2p games fail and don't earn money...well the chart shows they're wrong. If you want to show which game earns the most....you're not looking at the full picture with just that chart.
Who earns more money only shows what people pick more often.
It doesn't give a list of top ten sub games, but if you go further down the page, it does compare the total revenue of sub vs. cash shops. Cash shop ("free") was almost three times as much as sub. (For all games combined, obviously.) With a total number of subscribers, for all games combined, of 5.3 million.
which doesn't mean anything close to what people are trying to make it mean. The OP might as well have said f2p makes more money than your mom.
For the record I find peoples attempts to make one out to be better than the other totally stupid. Everyone doing it does it because they want their choice to mean something about them. It has nothing at all to do with the dumb ass reasons they actually type out. What I like is good so I am a real mmo gamer. What you pick is bad so you must be stupid.and your games sucks...pretty much sums up 90% of the posts on this topic.
which doesn't mean anything close to what people are trying to make it mean. The OP might as well have said f2p makes more money than your mom.
For the record I find peoples attempts to make one out to be better than the other totally stupid. Everyone doing it does it because they want their choice to mean something about them. It has nothing at all to do with the dumb ass reasons they actually type out. What I like is good so I am a real mmo gamer. What you pick is bad so you must be stupid.and your games sucks...pretty much sums up 90% of the posts on this topic.
There are two different issues here; having a personal preference for a given revenue model, and the practical discussion of which model is more successful. Having a personal preference for a revenue model is, as far as I can tell, stupid. If you enjoy a game, that should be all that matters, not how you pay for it, and if you don't enjoy a game, you shouldn't be paying in any form.
That said, if what we are looking at is the practicalities of what makes more sense for game developers/publishers to do in order to have long, financially healthy lives for their products, it seems pretty clear that relying *solely* on subscriptions for your revenue is a model that is going the way of the dodo. It's not about whether that is "good" or "bad," it is simply reality. Even WoW has a limited hybrid model, and if they hadn't added the cash shop, they would have left more than 200 million on the table last year alone. It's kind of a no brainer.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
P2P makes less actually , if you take time to read it says they took the numbers from the cash shop portion ( how much they sold from it ) . Of course F2P games they sell more in there cash shop, again they don't make more money they only sell more because they have nothing else to sell other then items in there shop. no where it will say they make more cash monthly or by year for the game itself only in there cash shop they do.
But when it comes to subs, sub game makes way more per month and yearly in total revenue and if they have a cash shop for mounts things like that like WoW has then they do more cash even there. What others are trying to say to you OP is that wow make millions only in sub and that is without counting the sub part of the sells per month. in total per year the amount blow off the F2P games revenue definitively .
That said, if what we are looking at is the practicalities of what makes more sense for game developers/publishers to do in order to have long, financially healthy lives for their products, it seems pretty clear that relying *solely* on subscriptions for your revenue is a model that is going the way of the dodo. It's not about whether that is "good" or "bad," it is simply reality. Even WoW has a limited hybrid model, and if they hadn't added the cash shop, they would have left more than 200 million on the table last year alone. It's kind of a no brainer.
I agree with the part I cut out.
This data shows how much the games earned. It doesn't predict how much a game could earn if it was designed for the right payment model.
Wow is the most successful mmo so sure p2p can be successful. Obviously just trying to copy it doesn't work out so well. f2p obviously makes money. But what works well in a f2p game and what works well in a p2p game seems more like trying to compare apples and oranges despite how hard people try and show which is better.
A sub works better in a virtual world that appeals to people who want to live in it..full or part time. EQ, WOW, VG...if it wasn't a mess are example of games that where for subs
f2p works better in a game that you play and then log out. ..just about every mmo in the last 5 years worked better as a f2p.
That is what is so stupid about trying to make these numbers say anything other than how much the game earned. They don't take into account the type of world the game created or the type of player they appealed to. All they are is just numbers that show $$ and that they can make it. So they don't really show that subs can't work anymore. They show that the games the devs are making don't work with a sub.
People get so hung up in trying to make what they like seem better than what someone else likes they lose focus on what's important...and that's supporting what you want not bitching about what you don't.
So basically F2P makes more money than P2P as long as you ignore pesky little things like income from subs?
Definitely useful information.
This would be the relevent information for you to see. This is the U.S. digital games market.
F2P and DLC make more money than subscriptions for digital games. Even if all of WoW's remaining subscribers bought boxes, that doesn't make up the difference between Subscriptions and F2P revenues.
So so wrong, not even worth going into how much so.
P2P makes less actually , if you take time to read it says they took the numbers from the cash shop portion ( how much they sold from it ) . Of course F2P games they sell more in there cash shop, again they don't make more money they only sell more because they have nothing else to sell other then items in there shop. no where it will say they make more cash monthly or by year for the game itself only in there cash shop they do.
But when it comes to subs, sub game makes way more per month and yearly in total revenue and if they have a cash shop for mounts things like that like WoW has then they do more cash even there. What others are trying to say to you OP is that wow make millions only in sub and that is without counting the sub part of the sells per month. in total per year the amount blow off the F2P games revenue definitively .
Read the whole report. It doesn't say which portion is WoW subscribers, but it does say the total number of subscribers, for all sub games, was only 5.3 million in 2013. EvE and TOR supposedly have around half a million subs each, leaving 4.3 million. WoW would have to have almost all of those subs just to tie the number one game in that list when adding together their sub and F2P revenue.
Originally posted by DamonVile
This data shows how much the games earned. It doesn't predict how much a game could earn if it was designed for the right payment model.
Wow is the most successful mmo so sure p2p can be successful. Obviously just trying to copy it doesn't work out so well. f2p obviously makes money. But what works well in a f2p game and what works well in a p2p game seems more like trying to compare apples and oranges despite how hard people try and show which is better.
A sub works better in a virtual world that appeals to people who want to live in it..full or part time. EQ, WOW, VG...if it wasn't a mess are example of games that where for subs
f2p works better in a game that you play and then log out. ..just about every mmo in the last 5 years worked better as a f2p.
That is what is so stupid about trying to make these numbers say anything other than how much the game earned. They don't take into account the type of world the game created or the type of player they appealed to. All they are is just numbers that show $$ and that they can make it. So they don't really show that subs can't work anymore. They show that the games the devs are making don't work with a sub.
People get so hung up in trying to make what they like seem better than what someone else likes they lose focus on what's important...and that's supporting what you want not bitching about what you don't.
I think all WoW proves is that a game launched in 2004 with almost no competition, had a peak of 12 million subscribers, and has had a decade to build customer loyalty can still get a fair number to sub. It proves absolute nothing about what a brand new game, with a brand new game's amount of content, can manage to accomplish. Whenever I play a game that has a sub option, I sub. For me that is categorically the better experience as compared to free options. But it still appears to be the reality that the market has undergone a fundamental change, and the time when any substantial number of people were willing to sub long-term to new games seems to be over.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
That said, if what we are looking at is the practicalities of what makes more sense for game developers/publishers to do in order to have long, financially healthy lives for their products, it seems pretty clear that relying *solely* on subscriptions for your revenue is a model that is going the way of the dodo. It's not about whether that is "good" or "bad," it is simply reality. Even WoW has a limited hybrid model, and if they hadn't added the cash shop, they would have left more than 200 million on the table last year alone. It's kind of a no brainer.
I agree with the part I cut out.
This data shows how much the games earned. It doesn't predict how much a game could earn if it was designed for the right payment model.
Wow is the most successful mmo so sure p2p can be successful. Obviously just trying to copy it doesn't work out so well. f2p obviously makes money. But what works well in a f2p game and what works well in a p2p game seems more like trying to compare apples and oranges despite how hard people try and show which is better.
A sub works better in a virtual world that appeals to people who want to live in it..full or part time. EQ, WOW, VG...if it wasn't a mess are example of games that where for subs
f2p works better in a game that you play and then log out. ..just about every mmo in the last 5 years worked better as a f2p.
That is what is so stupid about trying to make these numbers say anything other than how much the game earned. They don't take into account the type of world the game created or the type of player they appealed to. All they are is just numbers that show $$ and that they can make it. So they don't really show that subs can't work anymore. They show that the games the devs are making don't work with a sub.
People get so hung up in trying to make what they like seem better than what someone else likes they lose focus on what's important...and that's supporting what you want not bitching about what you don't.
I agree with different games having different payments that work "best" for those games. I do think that you are missing a distinction thou. There are P2P, F2P, and Hybrid games. Hybrid games are where f2p and p2p exist in the same environment.
I prefer to sub for SWToR. I do not have time to deal with the restrictions. I just want to blow enemy ships up. I pay for my monthly sub in less than fifteen minutes. For me, the sub is the best way to go. I have guild mates who vastly prefer the f2p method because it costs them nothing. For them, F2P is the way to go. The game allows both methods to work.
In the top 10 money making games (and most listed here on MMORPG.com), all but ONE is sub-only (WOW).
And wow is only #7, and making less than half compared to LoL.
This pretty much shows that to make money, F2P beats P2P, and often you don't even need a virtual world.
I think you are some what mistaken, or misguided here.
It shows that Free to Play games offer the quickest Return on Investment (ROI). Those statistic do not incorporate encompassing metrics, and are pretty much marketing jibberish. (neatly done though)
Don't be fooled. I can open the scale/metrics of those stats, and make those exact same statistic sing a different tune. Also, I don't find any relevance here, as your assessment seems jaded aswell. Because very few here within these forums would care about those games.. not one is what a typical adult gamer would even consider, most are Command & Conquer, RTS style of games, are they not?
Don't be fooled. I can open the scale/metrics of those stats, and make those exact same statistic sing a different tune. Also, I don't find any relevance here, as your assessment seems jaded aswell. Because very few here within these forums would care about those games.. not one is what a typical adult gamer would even consider, most are Command & Conquer, RTS style of games, are they not?
Not sure of the relevance on this site.
The primary relevance appears to be it's utility responding to the nonsensical argument that any game which includes a free option is a "failure." Those aren't the numbers you attach to failure.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Wait a cotton pick'n minute. How on earth does a FREE to play game make any money? Kind of a contradiction in terms is it not?
Not if you understand the difference between "Free to Play" and "Free," no.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Meh... The only thing settled is that the F2 worshippers will continue to troll their cause hoping people that actually have money will play their wretched game and support their habit for them. No facts to see here, just more Fail...
Don't be fooled. I can open the scale/metrics of those stats, and make those exact same statistic sing a different tune. Also, I don't find any relevance here, as your assessment seems jaded aswell. Because very few here within these forums would care about those games.. not one is what a typical adult gamer would even consider, most are Command & Conquer, RTS style of games, are they not?
Not sure of the relevance on this site.
The primary relevance appears to be it's utility responding to the nonsensical argument that any game which includes a free option is a "failure." Those aren't the numbers you attach to failure.
+1
also...throw me down for a /facepalm to the adult comment.
I agree with different games having different payments that work "best" for those games. I do think that you are missing a distinction thou. There are P2P, F2P, and Hybrid games. Hybrid games are where f2p and p2p exist in the same environment.
I prefer to sub for SWToR. I do not have time to deal with the restrictions. I just want to blow enemy ships up. I pay for my monthly sub in less than fifteen minutes. For me, the sub is the best way to go. I have guild mates who vastly prefer the f2p method because it costs them nothing. For them, F2P is the way to go. The game allows both methods to work.
I left it out because it would just confuse the issue. I also sub to any game that has the option if I play longer than a week or two. On the first time or returning from a break. I was trying to keep it mor eon point about when and where a sub/f2p works.
I don't think the option to sub in a f2p is the same thing.
In the top 10 money making games (and most listed here on MMORPG.com), all but ONE is sub-only (WOW).
And wow is only #7, and making less than half compared to LoL.
This pretty much shows that to make money, F2P beats P2P, and often you don't even need a virtual world.
Yeah i already knew this. But posting it here will cause a fight. Sub.players will refuse to believe this and fight you on it. Even common sense will lose it here. You could get game dev's admitting to this and posters here will call them liars.
Don't be fooled. I can open the scale/metrics of those stats, and make those exact same statistic sing a different tune. Also, I don't find any relevance here, as your assessment seems jaded aswell. Because very few here within these forums would care about those games.. not one is what a typical adult gamer would even consider, most are Command & Conquer, RTS style of games, are they not?
Not sure of the relevance on this site.
The primary relevance appears to be it's utility responding to the nonsensical argument that any game which includes a free option is a "failure." Those aren't the numbers you attach to failure.
Any chance you can touch up those sentences, I am unable to understand a single point. (lb?)
BTW.. failure & success is defined from two distinct points. The end-user (if he likes/liked the game) VS Publisher (if their business model made them money).
In the top 10 money making games (and most listed here on MMORPG.com), all but ONE is sub-only (WOW).
And wow is only #7, and making less than half compared to LoL.
This pretty much shows that to make money, F2P beats P2P, and often you don't even need a virtual world.
Heh, that list just goes to show you which games people don't mind putting 40-50$ a month on a cash shop. But then they cry that a 10$ sub fee is too expensive? Oh well, just thought I'd throw that in there because I find it funny how people can shoot themselves in the foot. P2P 4 Life~!
So the data illustrates how some people are willing to pay more to play crappier games? It just means FTP games are more expensive to play. It shows that gamers are getting ripped off...
BTW.. failure & success is defined from two distinct points. The end-user (if he likes/liked the game) VS Publisher (if their business model made them money).
It's only correctly defined from the second. Whether or not a product was successful has nothing to do with whether a particular player liked it.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Originally posted by theglenn3 yea just cause the brazillians, koreans, and chinese are willing to buy cat ears for their gurl toon doesn't mean the game is good.
U.S. only portion of the report: F2P 2.9 billion, Sub 1.1 billion.
This topic has absolutely nothing to do with whether a game is good, so your point is not relevant on that count either.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
If you want the same experience you get from a sub game in a F2P game your going to spend more money on it, there are no two ways about it. The only reason this model works is because their are people that have no money that get to at least play a limited version of a game, and there are people that are willing to spend more than a sub for the same experience to make up the difference.
Not sure why or how these threads get started or why anyone would believe the numbers. Obvious to me the quality = Sub or AT LEAST B2P. F2P has NEVER been as good.
Comments
which doesn't mean anything close to what people are trying to make it mean. The OP might as well have said f2p makes more money than your mom.
For the record I find peoples attempts to make one out to be better than the other totally stupid. Everyone doing it does it because they want their choice to mean something about them. It has nothing at all to do with the dumb ass reasons they actually type out. What I like is good so I am a real mmo gamer. What you pick is bad so you must be stupid.and your games sucks...pretty much sums up 90% of the posts on this topic.
There are two different issues here; having a personal preference for a given revenue model, and the practical discussion of which model is more successful. Having a personal preference for a revenue model is, as far as I can tell, stupid. If you enjoy a game, that should be all that matters, not how you pay for it, and if you don't enjoy a game, you shouldn't be paying in any form.
That said, if what we are looking at is the practicalities of what makes more sense for game developers/publishers to do in order to have long, financially healthy lives for their products, it seems pretty clear that relying *solely* on subscriptions for your revenue is a model that is going the way of the dodo. It's not about whether that is "good" or "bad," it is simply reality. Even WoW has a limited hybrid model, and if they hadn't added the cash shop, they would have left more than 200 million on the table last year alone. It's kind of a no brainer.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
P2P makes less actually , if you take time to read it says they took the numbers from the cash shop portion ( how much they sold from it ) . Of course F2P games they sell more in there cash shop, again they don't make more money they only sell more because they have nothing else to sell other then items in there shop. no where it will say they make more cash monthly or by year for the game itself only in there cash shop they do.
But when it comes to subs, sub game makes way more per month and yearly in total revenue and if they have a cash shop for mounts things like that like WoW has then they do more cash even there. What others are trying to say to you OP is that wow make millions only in sub and that is without counting the sub part of the sells per month. in total per year the amount blow off the F2P games revenue definitively .
I agree with the part I cut out.
This data shows how much the games earned. It doesn't predict how much a game could earn if it was designed for the right payment model.
Wow is the most successful mmo so sure p2p can be successful. Obviously just trying to copy it doesn't work out so well. f2p obviously makes money. But what works well in a f2p game and what works well in a p2p game seems more like trying to compare apples and oranges despite how hard people try and show which is better.
A sub works better in a virtual world that appeals to people who want to live in it..full or part time. EQ, WOW, VG...if it wasn't a mess are example of games that where for subs
f2p works better in a game that you play and then log out. ..just about every mmo in the last 5 years worked better as a f2p.
That is what is so stupid about trying to make these numbers say anything other than how much the game earned. They don't take into account the type of world the game created or the type of player they appealed to. All they are is just numbers that show $$ and that they can make it. So they don't really show that subs can't work anymore. They show that the games the devs are making don't work with a sub.
People get so hung up in trying to make what they like seem better than what someone else likes they lose focus on what's important...and that's supporting what you want not bitching about what you don't.
So so wrong, not even worth going into how much so.
Read the whole report. It doesn't say which portion is WoW subscribers, but it does say the total number of subscribers, for all sub games, was only 5.3 million in 2013. EvE and TOR supposedly have around half a million subs each, leaving 4.3 million. WoW would have to have almost all of those subs just to tie the number one game in that list when adding together their sub and F2P revenue.
I think all WoW proves is that a game launched in 2004 with almost no competition, had a peak of 12 million subscribers, and has had a decade to build customer loyalty can still get a fair number to sub. It proves absolute nothing about what a brand new game, with a brand new game's amount of content, can manage to accomplish. Whenever I play a game that has a sub option, I sub. For me that is categorically the better experience as compared to free options. But it still appears to be the reality that the market has undergone a fundamental change, and the time when any substantial number of people were willing to sub long-term to new games seems to be over.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I agree with different games having different payments that work "best" for those games. I do think that you are missing a distinction thou. There are P2P, F2P, and Hybrid games. Hybrid games are where f2p and p2p exist in the same environment.
I prefer to sub for SWToR. I do not have time to deal with the restrictions. I just want to blow enemy ships up. I pay for my monthly sub in less than fifteen minutes. For me, the sub is the best way to go. I have guild mates who vastly prefer the f2p method because it costs them nothing. For them, F2P is the way to go. The game allows both methods to work.
I think you are some what mistaken, or misguided here.
It shows that Free to Play games offer the quickest Return on Investment (ROI). Those statistic do not incorporate encompassing metrics, and are pretty much marketing jibberish. (neatly done though)
Don't be fooled. I can open the scale/metrics of those stats, and make those exact same statistic sing a different tune. Also, I don't find any relevance here, as your assessment seems jaded aswell. Because very few here within these forums would care about those games.. not one is what a typical adult gamer would even consider, most are Command & Conquer, RTS style of games, are they not?
Not sure of the relevance on this site.
The primary relevance appears to be it's utility responding to the nonsensical argument that any game which includes a free option is a "failure." Those aren't the numbers you attach to failure.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Wait a cotton pick'n minute. How on earth does a FREE to play game make any money? Kind of a contradiction in terms is it not?
Let's party like it is 1863!
Not if you understand the difference between "Free to Play" and "Free," no.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Meh... The only thing settled is that the F2 worshippers will continue to troll their cause hoping people that actually have money will play their wretched game and support their habit for them. No facts to see here, just more Fail...
+1
also...throw me down for a /facepalm to the adult comment.
I left it out because it would just confuse the issue. I also sub to any game that has the option if I play longer than a week or two. On the first time or returning from a break. I was trying to keep it mor eon point about when and where a sub/f2p works.
I don't think the option to sub in a f2p is the same thing.
Yeah i already knew this. But posting it here will cause a fight. Sub.players will refuse to believe this and fight you on it. Even common sense will lose it here. You could get game dev's admitting to this and posters here will call them liars.
Any chance you can touch up those sentences, I am unable to understand a single point. (lb?)
BTW.. failure & success is defined from two distinct points. The end-user (if he likes/liked the game) VS Publisher (if their business model made them money).
Heh, that list just goes to show you which games people don't mind putting 40-50$ a month on a cash shop. But then they cry that a 10$ sub fee is too expensive? Oh well, just thought I'd throw that in there because I find it funny how people can shoot themselves in the foot.
P2P 4 Life~! 
So the data illustrates how some people are willing to pay more to play crappier games? It just means FTP games are more expensive to play. It shows that gamers are getting ripped off...
FTP advicates are celebrating this, why?
It's only correctly defined from the second. Whether or not a product was successful has nothing to do with whether a particular player liked it.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Optimizing PC games for consoles is kinda like outfitting your car for a bike trail.
U.S. only portion of the report: F2P 2.9 billion, Sub 1.1 billion.
This topic has absolutely nothing to do with whether a game is good, so your point is not relevant on that count either.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
If you want the same experience you get from a sub game in a F2P game your going to spend more money on it, there are no two ways about it. The only reason this model works is because their are people that have no money that get to at least play a limited version of a game, and there are people that are willing to spend more than a sub for the same experience to make up the difference.
I love how people take pride in this statement.... like it is something great they have accomplished!
"Yeah, I managed to not support a game I played for years."
Rise of the MMO Leeches! Time to get out the salt and squash this up-rising!