Originally posted by adam_nox freemium works when a game is bad, but subs work better when a game is good.
So what you are saying is that WoW is the only "good" game ever made. Nice to know.
Considering WoW isn't the only MMO with a subscription model... I'd think not
He said that subs work better when a game is good; WoW is the only game with a large population that doesn't have a substantial free option. The only one. So he is either saying that only WoW is "good," or only WoW and niche games with tiny audiences are "good."
No, that's not what he said. All he says is subs work when a game is good, freemium works when a game is bad. That's it. That's literally his entire post, and he's quite plain and direct in what he says.
He says nothing about population. He says nothing about "substantial free option". Those are qualifiers you arbitrarily pulled out of thin air, just so you could tear it down. That's called constructing a strawman, and it seldom - if ever - works.
I mean, you quoted the guy directly, so I'm not sure what you expected to achieve by misrepresenting a post that everyone can plainly see does not even so much as allude to what you said.
No, that's not what he said. All he says is subs work when a game is good, freemium works when a game is bad. That's it. That's literally his entire post, and he's quite plain and direct in what he says.
He says nothing about population. He says nothing about "substantial free option". Those are qualifiers you arbitrarily pulled out of thin air, just so you could tear it down. That's called constructing a strawman, and it seldom - if ever - works.
I mean, you quoted the guy directly, so I'm not sure what you expected to achieve by misrepresenting a post that everyone can plainly see does not even so much as allude to what you said.
I'm not misrepresenting anything. I am pointing out which games it is logically possible to call good given his stated criteria. The list of "good" games would consist of WoW, and some tiny niche games. That's it. If that wasn't what he was trying to say, he needs to revise his criteria.
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'm with you, but I think that this whole "whale" phenomenon in MMOs isn't going to last.
How do you reconcile your opinion with the fact that the F2P market is growing in revenue. Someone (i.e. whales) have to pay.
At the least, the "whale" phenomenon has not reached the turning point yet, from data.
Sure, nothing last forever. Sub-only games dominate the market for what? 10-12 years? And now sub-only is trending to be gone.
All I have to look at is back to those first few games which made a living from the cash store early on, games like YoVille, make closure anouncements. The 400,000 people there aren't leaving happy, and why should they? They didn't dump thousands of dollars into a virtual dollhouse just to have it go "poof" because there are /only/ 400,000 players on there daily. Indeed, if this model is so successful, Zynga wouldn't be closing up games left and right and pushing their customers to things like online poker.
Zynga is a bellweather for the more action-oriented online games that we are a part of. And I think that, for the most part, a lot of the big games are still open, but not as many as their used to be (CoH and WAR both shut down). Indeed, when the next round of games comes out, how many of the cash-shop titles we see now are going to remain open? LotR? The Funcom games? DDO? And how many of those hardcore "whales" who get closed on are going to dump /yet more/ cash on something that might only remain open half as long? Or perhaps close in 88 days, like APB?
You are attaching significance to something that must happen. Some games must close. Games will open, and if they open they must eventually close. The monetization model is just a way for the developer to collect money. The developer's skill in producing the game, the publisher's skill in determining the monetization model for the target audience and the developer's and publisher's long term business goals determine whether or not the game gets to stay open.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Indeed, when the next round of games comes out, how many of the cash-shop titles we see now are going to remain open? LotR? The Funcom games? DDO? And how many of those hardcore "whales" who get closed on are going to dump /yet more/ cash on something that might only remain open half as long? Or perhaps close in 88 days, like APB?
Good question. Just look at the list on MMORPG.com.
Quoting just a few and ignoring hundreds won't make the market magically smaller.
And so what if some of the games are closing. There are new ones to play. Plus, the point is that the market is expanding. Are you denying this fact?
Good question. Just look at the list on MMORPG.com.
Quoting just a few and ignoring hundreds won't make the market magically smaller.
And so what if some of the games are closing. There are new ones to play. Plus, the point is that the market is expanding. Are you denying this fact?
Whether the market is expanding may depend on how you define the market. Is the number of games being offered growing? Certainly. But I'm not sure the number of people playing MMOs is expanding substantially at this point, at least not the number of those actually spending money when they do so. We may actually reach the point soon where even decent games start to "fail" because the MMO audience just gets spread too thin to be capable of supporting all of them.
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.
Indeed, when the next round of games comes out, how many of the cash-shop titles we see now are going to remain open? LotR? The Funcom games? DDO? And how many of those hardcore "whales" who get closed on are going to dump /yet more/ cash on something that might only remain open half as long? Or perhaps close in 88 days, like APB?
Good question. Just look at the list on MMORPG.com.
Quoting just a few and ignoring hundreds won't make the market magically smaller.
And so what if some of the games are closing. There are new ones to play. Plus, the point is that the market is expanding. Are you denying this fact?
May I ask, why you have been so frightened to acknowledge, or even respond to any of my posts. At first, I thought you may have overlooked them, but now I can see a clear & decisive pattern here.
You are simply misguided.. and/or have a massive agenda to keep spewing the things you do.
You suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect. You have not displayed any skill at understand data, data-points, data-sets, or even simply extrapolations of these business models.
You offer OPINIONS, then fall back to your own playstyle when cornered.
Simply put, you have zero substance to offer anyone here and are not fooling anyone. I can easily crush your opinion with facts, but you seem to know this, and that is why you are being coy.
To start a thread, then troll everyone in it, illustrates how little you respect this community.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by AlBQuirkyOriginally posted by nariusseldonAnd industrial data is "questionable"? At least it is not some opinions from random dudes on the internet.
That is one difference between you and I. You seek to find what you can use and once found, stop seeking. I seek things out and when I find them, I question them. I don't stop at the first thing I agree with. Then I seek answers for those questions in other places. Of course anything you agree with is never "questionable."data cannot be questionable .. they are facts.
So do you find any other "data" that contradicts the data in this link? Keep trying ... let me know when you have it.
Your data does not show Subscription money made in this "F2P makes waaaaay moar money!" post of yours. Where is THAT chart? You're the one who keeps posting "facts" and data, I figured you'd have that already...
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Your data does not show Subscription money made in this "F2P makes waaaaay moar money!" post of yours. Where is THAT chart? You're the one who keeps posting "facts" and data, I figured you'd have that already...
We know how much subs cost. We know how many subs it would take to make more money than the games on that list. We know that when games have sub numbers that high, they brag about them. We know that no game other than WoW is bragging. The conclusion from all the things we know is not a difficult one. Every game in the MMO space that is competitive with WoW in terms of revenue is F2P. They aren't even freemium, they are straight F2P.
I happen to think freemium is a necessary model (long term, after the launch window milking of box sales and subs) for any new game that includes a sub, but I really, really don't like pure F2P games. The fact that I don't like them doesn't change the reality that they can be fantastic money makers.
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.
Your data does not show Subscription money made in this "F2P makes waaaaay moar money!" post of yours. Where is THAT chart? You're the one who keeps posting "facts" and data, I figured you'd have that already...
We know how much subs cost. We know how many subs it would take to make more money than the games on that list. We know that when games have sub numbers that high, they brag about them. We know that no game other than WoW is bragging. The conclusion from all the things we know is not a difficult one. Every game in the MMO space that is competitive with WoW in terms of revenue is F2P. They aren't even freemium, they are straight F2P.
I happen to think freemium is a necessary model (long term, after the launch window milking of box sales and subs) for any new game that includes a sub, but I really, really don't like pure F2P games. The fact that I don't like them doesn't change the reality that they can be fantastic money makers.
Very interesting post. May I ask how you know all this..? (Sounds like one big uneducated guess)
I guess this bears repeating, but I work with top MMORPG developers & work directly with such metrics, being discussed within this thread. Very few within this thread, even remotely understand what these numbers mean.
Nothing in the MMO space is competitive with WoW in terms of sustained revenues.
WoW is what one would call an "anomaly". When a person begins to use World of Warcraft itself, or it's business model in an argument, you have already tipped your hand; of ignorance. You isolate WoW and discuss everything else, to ferret out the true nature of the MMO space.
The idle chatter in this thread is incredible. Even 10 year players can illustrate how skewed many of these arguments are. Yet, undaunted, same people come back with even more absurd posts, based on more opinion. Starting to think there isn't a real community here at MMORPG.
Is there no moderation here, no one who cares and protect this community from trolls?
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.
LOL
You didn't even read the article.
"Star Wars: The Old Republicearned $139 million in additional revenues,"
See that word additional. It means in addition to subs.
All that money WoW made in this list was from people buying mounts. I wonder what the amount would be if you added their sub revenues into the totals.
Pretty much.
There are a lot of people that English isn't their first language so it makes reading comprehension extremely difficult for some on this site and they jump to conclusions when they are wrong like the OP did. Pretty commonplace on this forum. They only read what they WANT to read.
Good question. Just look at the list on MMORPG.com.
Quoting just a few and ignoring hundreds won't make the market magically smaller.
And so what if some of the games are closing. There are new ones to play. Plus, the point is that the market is expanding. Are you denying this fact?
Whether the market is expanding may depend on how you define the market. Is the number of games being offered growing? Certainly. But I'm not sure the number of people playing MMOs is expanding substantially at this point, at least not the number of those actually spending money when they do so. We may actually reach the point soon where even decent games start to "fail" because the MMO audience just gets spread too thin to be capable of supporting all of them.
"A big portion of the report focuses on MMO market, which, according to GlobalCollect, will account for $14.9 billion this year and get a 14% growth."
So what if "decent games start to fail". First, "decent" is subjective. Second, in a large market, there are always failing companies (look at the dot com boom bust).
Your data does not show Subscription money made in this "F2P makes waaaaay moar money!" post of yours. Where is THAT chart? You're the one who keeps posting "facts" and data, I figured you'd have that already...
We know how much subs cost. We know how many subs it would take to make more money than the games on that list. We know that when games have sub numbers that high, they brag about them. We know that no game other than WoW is bragging. The conclusion from all the things we know is not a difficult one. Every game in the MMO space that is competitive with WoW in terms of revenue is F2P. They aren't even freemium, they are straight F2P.
I happen to think freemium is a necessary model (long term, after the launch window milking of box sales and subs) for any new game that includes a sub, but I really, really don't like pure F2P games. The fact that I don't like them doesn't change the reality that they can be fantastic money makers.
Very interesting post. May I ask how you know all this..? (Sounds like one big uneducated guess)
I guess this bears repeating, but I work with top MMORPG developers & work directly with such metrics, being discussed within this thread. Very few within this thread, even remotely understand what these numbers mean.
Nothing in the MMO space is competitive with WoW in terms of sustained revenues.
WoW is what one would call an "anomaly". When a person begins to use World of Warcraft itself, or it's business model in an argument, you have already tipped your hand; of ignorance. You isolate WoW and discuss everything else, to ferret out the true nature of the MMO space.
The idle chatter in this thread is incredible. Even 10 year players can illustrate how skewed many of these arguments are. Yet, undaunted, same people come back with even more absurd posts, based on more opinion. Starting to think there isn't a real community here at MMORPG.
Is there no moderation here, no one who cares and protect this community from trolls?
Sadly, this post will just get ignored and the same people will keep on static "facts" and proving them with data that isn't even applicable to their assumption.
It's just how it goes. Several people have pointed out obvious fallacies and improper usage of data, they all got ignored.
Why, as a consumer, would I care about which payment model makes the company the most money? (nevermind all the things everyone is point out about these numbers.)
As a player, I'll pay whatever I think the game is worth and frankly every F2P game that I've tried wasn't worth the cost of free.
Why, as a consumer, would I care about which payment model makes the company the most money? (nevermind all the things everyone is point out about these numbers.)
As a player, I'll pay whatever I think the game is worth and frankly every F2P game that I've tried wasn't worth the cost of free.
I don't know about you .. but it is fun reading and discussion about payment models. If you care enough to comment, that is fun for me.
And that is just you .. i find many fun F2P that i enjoy totally free.
Why, as a consumer, would I care about which payment model makes the company the most money? (nevermind all the things everyone is point out about these numbers.)
As a player, I'll pay whatever I think the game is worth and frankly every F2P game that I've tried wasn't worth the cost of free.
I don't know about you .. but it is fun reading and discussion about payment models. If you care enough to comment, that is fun for me.
And that is just you .. i find many fun F2P that i enjoy totally free.
Very telling that you are avoiding Fractal_Analogy's posts.
Maybe you won't have as much fun playing with him, eh?
"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
Is there no moderation here, no one who cares and protect this community from trolls?
Nope, look at the OPs post count and you shall have your answer. They thrive here, same people under different accounts.
One man's discussion is another man's trolling. And why would you care anyway? You can always ignore threads you don't like, and posters you don't agree with.
I believe that there should be a model where everyone pays a subscriber fee but people who purchase $X amount from the cash shop should be allowed to play for free. That way the ones with enough money to actually back the game (whales if you will, but I find that very derogatory) can invest in the game/cash shop in whatever form they feel like.
Or another option is to have it f2p and if you do not purchase $X amount from the cash shop within 3 months your account should be permanently deleted. That way if someone does decide to come back the publisher can have an influx to the cash shop as they feel the "catchup tension" to get to the "level/progress" that they were before. This eliminates the locusts of hanging around taking free handouts from those of us willing to make cash shop purchases and also incurring extra unneeded bandwidth/server costs to the publisher.
I believe that there should be a model where everyone pays a subscriber fee but people who purchase $X amount from the cash shop should be allowed to play for free. That way the ones with enough money to actually back the game (whales if you will, but I find that very derogatory) can invest in the game/cash shop in whatever form they feel like.
Or another option is to have it f2p and if you do not purchase $X amount from the cash shop within 3 months your account should be permanently deleted. That way if someone does decide to come back the publisher can have an influx to the cash shop as they feel the "catchup tension" to get to the "level/progress" that they were before. This eliminates the locusts of hanging around taking free handouts from those of us willing to make cash shop purchases and also incurring extra unneeded bandwidth/server costs to the publisher.
Are you planning to become a game dev? No one is implementing your set of rules today. I am enjoying quite a few games paying absolutely nothing.
I believe that there should be a model where everyone pays a subscriber fee but people who purchase $X amount from the cash shop should be allowed to play for free. That way the ones with enough money to actually back the game (whales if you will, but I find that very derogatory) can invest in the game/cash shop in whatever form they feel like.
Or another option is to have it f2p and if you do not purchase $X amount from the cash shop within 3 months your account should be permanently deleted. That way if someone does decide to come back the publisher can have an influx to the cash shop as they feel the "catchup tension" to get to the "level/progress" that they were before. This eliminates the locusts of hanging around taking free handouts from those of us willing to make cash shop purchases and also incurring extra unneeded bandwidth/server costs to the publisher.
Are you planning to become a game dev? No one is implementing your set of rules today. I am enjoying quite a few games paying absolutely nothing.
It's not all about your unnecessary existence in a f2p game. I just think it is selfish but also naïve of you to think of only yourself, it's like you can't even see the investment opportunity from the business side of things. Secondly "devs" do what they are told to do when you pay them on salary, it has nothing to do with what they want from a business perspective. That's why I like the f2p market, once the game is created you can reduce your development workforce to a few focused teams to keep the game running and design/implement purchasable items to also keep the game in the black.
Did you read the caption under that before doing your typical misinformation post about how much better F2P is doing?
It says: "Top 10 online PC titles based on estimate worldwide, free to play earnings for 2013. WoW and The Old Republic are primarily subscription based titles, but also generate revenue through the sale of micro-transactions."
This is a list specifically limited to online (read multiplayer) PC only titles and how much they make on their F2P side. This means all of the WoW subs aren't added in (nor the SWtOR subs). It also means no console games, no mobile, no social browser games etc.
In other words there is absolutely no correlation to be drawn with that data to compare P2P to F2P. So, as usual, you misrepresented information in your attempt to convince everyone that F2P is the only right choice.
Now if only I knew why you made a point of doing that instead of normally discussing things.
Comments
No, that's not what he said. All he says is subs work when a game is good, freemium works when a game is bad. That's it. That's literally his entire post, and he's quite plain and direct in what he says.
He says nothing about population. He says nothing about "substantial free option". Those are qualifiers you arbitrarily pulled out of thin air, just so you could tear it down. That's called constructing a strawman, and it seldom - if ever - works.
I mean, you quoted the guy directly, so I'm not sure what you expected to achieve by misrepresenting a post that everyone can plainly see does not even so much as allude to what you said.
I'm not misrepresenting anything. I am pointing out which games it is logically possible to call good given his stated criteria. The list of "good" games would consist of WoW, and some tiny niche games. That's it. If that wasn't what he was trying to say, he needs to revise his criteria.
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.
You are attaching significance to something that must happen. Some games must close. Games will open, and if they open they must eventually close. The monetization model is just a way for the developer to collect money. The developer's skill in producing the game, the publisher's skill in determining the monetization model for the target audience and the developer's and publisher's long term business goals determine whether or not the game gets to stay open.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Good question. Just look at the list on MMORPG.com.
Quoting just a few and ignoring hundreds won't make the market magically smaller.
And so what if some of the games are closing. There are new ones to play. Plus, the point is that the market is expanding. Are you denying this fact?
Whether the market is expanding may depend on how you define the market. Is the number of games being offered growing? Certainly. But I'm not sure the number of people playing MMOs is expanding substantially at this point, at least not the number of those actually spending money when they do so. We may actually reach the point soon where even decent games start to "fail" because the MMO audience just gets spread too thin to be capable of supporting all of them.
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.
May I ask, why you have been so frightened to acknowledge, or even respond to any of my posts. At first, I thought you may have overlooked them, but now I can see a clear & decisive pattern here.
You are simply misguided.. and/or have a massive agenda to keep spewing the things you do.
You suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect. You have not displayed any skill at understand data, data-points, data-sets, or even simply extrapolations of these business models.
You offer OPINIONS, then fall back to your own playstyle when cornered.
Simply put, you have zero substance to offer anyone here and are not fooling anyone. I can easily crush your opinion with facts, but you seem to know this, and that is why you are being coy.
To start a thread, then troll everyone in it, illustrates how little you respect this community.
data cannot be questionable .. they are facts.
So do you find any other "data" that contradicts the data in this link? Keep trying ... let me know when you have it.
Your data does not show Subscription money made in this "F2P makes waaaaay moar money!" post of yours. Where is THAT chart? You're the one who keeps posting "facts" and data, I figured you'd have that already...
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
We know how much subs cost. We know how many subs it would take to make more money than the games on that list. We know that when games have sub numbers that high, they brag about them. We know that no game other than WoW is bragging. The conclusion from all the things we know is not a difficult one. Every game in the MMO space that is competitive with WoW in terms of revenue is F2P. They aren't even freemium, they are straight F2P.
I happen to think freemium is a necessary model (long term, after the launch window milking of box sales and subs) for any new game that includes a sub, but I really, really don't like pure F2P games. The fact that I don't like them doesn't change the reality that they can be fantastic money makers.
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.
Very interesting post. May I ask how you know all this..? (Sounds like one big uneducated guess)
I guess this bears repeating, but I work with top MMORPG developers & work directly with such metrics, being discussed within this thread. Very few within this thread, even remotely understand what these numbers mean.
Nothing in the MMO space is competitive with WoW in terms of sustained revenues.
WoW is what one would call an "anomaly". When a person begins to use World of Warcraft itself, or it's business model in an argument, you have already tipped your hand; of ignorance. You isolate WoW and discuss everything else, to ferret out the true nature of the MMO space.
The idle chatter in this thread is incredible. Even 10 year players can illustrate how skewed many of these arguments are. Yet, undaunted, same people come back with even more absurd posts, based on more opinion. Starting to think there isn't a real community here at MMORPG.
Is there no moderation here, no one who cares and protect this community from trolls?
Pretty much.
There are a lot of people that English isn't their first language so it makes reading comprehension extremely difficult for some on this site and they jump to conclusions when they are wrong like the OP did. Pretty commonplace on this forum. They only read what they WANT to read.
The number of games growing.
The amount of money growing.
http://2p.com/831716_1/Global-MMO-Market-Will-be-149-Billion-Big-in-2013---Report.htm
"A big portion of the report focuses on MMO market, which, according to GlobalCollect, will account for $14.9 billion this year and get a 14% growth."
So what if "decent games start to fail". First, "decent" is subjective. Second, in a large market, there are always failing companies (look at the dot com boom bust).
Sadly, this post will just get ignored and the same people will keep on static "facts" and proving them with data that isn't even applicable to their assumption.
It's just how it goes. Several people have pointed out obvious fallacies and improper usage of data, they all got ignored.
With all due respect to the OP...
Why, as a consumer, would I care about which payment model makes the company the most money? (nevermind all the things everyone is point out about these numbers.)
As a player, I'll pay whatever I think the game is worth and frankly every F2P game that I've tried wasn't worth the cost of free.
I don't know about you .. but it is fun reading and discussion about payment models. If you care enough to comment, that is fun for me.
And that is just you .. i find many fun F2P that i enjoy totally free.
Very telling that you are avoiding Fractal_Analogy's posts.
Maybe you won't have as much fun playing with him, eh?
"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
OMG is this thread still going? This is how I feel about this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEC_lkpD3rM
Nope, look at the OPs post count and you shall have your answer. They thrive here, same people under different accounts.
One man's discussion is another man's trolling. And why would you care anyway? You can always ignore threads you don't like, and posters you don't agree with.
Crappy MMO's with small playerbases make more money off F2P and good MMO's with big playerbases make more money off P2P. Whats new?
Oh also, good P2P MMO's with big playerbases make more F2P money than dozens of crappy exclusively F2P MMO's.
Long live the supreme kings of P2P.
I believe that there should be a model where everyone pays a subscriber fee but people who purchase $X amount from the cash shop should be allowed to play for free. That way the ones with enough money to actually back the game (whales if you will, but I find that very derogatory) can invest in the game/cash shop in whatever form they feel like.
Or another option is to have it f2p and if you do not purchase $X amount from the cash shop within 3 months your account should be permanently deleted. That way if someone does decide to come back the publisher can have an influx to the cash shop as they feel the "catchup tension" to get to the "level/progress" that they were before. This eliminates the locusts of hanging around taking free handouts from those of us willing to make cash shop purchases and also incurring extra unneeded bandwidth/server costs to the publisher.
Are you planning to become a game dev? No one is implementing your set of rules today. I am enjoying quite a few games paying absolutely nothing.
It's not all about your unnecessary existence in a f2p game. I just think it is selfish but also naïve of you to think of only yourself, it's like you can't even see the investment opportunity from the business side of things. Secondly "devs" do what they are told to do when you pay them on salary, it has nothing to do with what they want from a business perspective. That's why I like the f2p market, once the game is created you can reduce your development workforce to a few focused teams to keep the game running and design/implement purchasable items to also keep the game in the black.
Um.................................................................
Did you read the caption under that before doing your typical misinformation post about how much better F2P is doing?
It says: "Top 10 online PC titles based on estimate worldwide, free to play earnings for 2013. WoW and The Old Republic are primarily subscription based titles, but also generate revenue through the sale of micro-transactions."
This is a list specifically limited to online (read multiplayer) PC only titles and how much they make on their F2P side. This means all of the WoW subs aren't added in (nor the SWtOR subs). It also means no console games, no mobile, no social browser games etc.
In other words there is absolutely no correlation to be drawn with that data to compare P2P to F2P. So, as usual, you misrepresented information in your attempt to convince everyone that F2P is the only right choice.
Now if only I knew why you made a point of doing that instead of normally discussing things.
Yeah, but in the list only 2 mmorpgs would interest me. That would be WoW and TFC2.
All these other F2P are like most on the market and they just suck.
The issue is that companies look too much to earn money instead delivering a great game.