The fact they categorize League of Legends and Crossfire as MMO, disqualifies anything they write.
LoL is a MOBA, Crossfire a standard FPS, neither is an MMO.
come again.. MMO stands for massive multiplayer game like Lol.. and Crossfire etc.since u league there are millions of people online at the same time.. same for crossfire. the word MMO is wrongly used..
No LoL is not an MMO nor is Crossfire. Just because millions are online at the same time doesn't make it a MMO. If that were the case Mortal Kombat would be an MMO, Street Fighter would be an MMO. Online Chess would be an MMO. It's how many people are on the same instanced server/map and can interact at once. League is a team game, only 10 people can interact at any one time.
Everquest is an MMO, because thousands can interact in cities, and hundreds can interact in regular zones. Not to mention cross server commerce in the form of auction houses.
It really should be this simple; the distinction between an MMO and a multiplayer online game is pretty obvious. Having a lobby where people can chat is nothing new and was and will never be an MMO.
This type of post should be all that is needed to clear up this fairly new and unnecessary silly confusion, but what we're seeing here is case where manipulative marketing is kicking logic's ass in a scary way.
"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
Were this to be the only content on the page, my rating would be Lowest Quality. There's no information on what any of those number represent, how you collected your data, what sources you may have used, who you are and whether you have any sort of expertise on the matter.
In short, what you've created here is absolutely useless to anyone, the graph has no purpose.
Oh really? How dare you question my data. I have a wordpress site.
Check out my latest data about the sale of strawberries.
That's cute, but your only digging your hole deeper and proving my point that people just want to whine about data they don't agree with. You couldn't care less whether it's true or not, you just don't like it.
Not really true. If someone said they were having ratings about Football(American Styled) and they included the NFL and College Football. They then added on European Football(soccer) and Rugby. But not include American Soccer or Canadian Football. Its just a bunch of numbers that don't mean much because Soccer and Rugby aren't American Football and then they don't even include Canadian Football.
Were this to be the only content on the page, my rating would be Lowest Quality. There's no information on what any of those number represent, how you collected your data, what sources you may have used, who you are and whether you have any sort of expertise on the matter.
In short, what you've created here is absolutely useless to anyone, the graph has no purpose.
I look at raptr and i can claim to have an insight of "30m players habits" (or w/e raptr published)
I wouldnt trust any of your ratings, and i would rate your ratings lowest quality (as you yourself admit you just glance at them and rate them, sorry, but thats utter c**p and thats also part of the problem)
The right game will get its $15/month/subscriber, no issue at all. All current figures show is that the present crop of P2P games are not very good, only on par with the F2P games, which have never really been very good.
The "right" game will get much more out of players/month.
And i bet you wouldnt like the "right" game. probably proclim it "biggest evil that saw the light of day"
and I quote, "In the lead-up to the holiday season, total digital games sales hit their highest point for the year so far. With the exception of pay-to-play MMOs, all segments managed to grow their revenue."
The fact they categorize League of Legends and Crossfire as MMO, disqualifies anything they write.
LoL is a MOBA, Crossfire a standard FPS, neither is an MMO.
come again.. MMO stands for massive multiplayer game like Lol.. and Crossfire etc.since u league there are millions of people online at the same time.. same for crossfire. the word MMO is wrongly used..
So every single game ever with online multiplayer is an MMO by that definition.
Bloodborne is an MMO Call of Duty is an MMO FIFA is an MMO ...
Tera = P2P mmo...Strike 1. SWTOR = P2P mmo...Strike 2. League of Legends = F2P mmo...Strike 3.
Disregard, nothing to see here.
Uh .... you do realize that SWTOR and Tera have monthly subscription payment plans right?
Most Western "Free to play" MMOs have a $15 per month subscription plan.
So, I guess we should disregard everything you say then.
Uh... you do realize SWTOR/Tera's monthly subscription payment plans are optional right?
Uh.... you do realize in order for a game to be considered P2P, the only way for you to play it is to pay for it right(disregarding promotional trial periods).
So, I guess we should disregard everything you say because you don't understand anything about what P2P means and what optional means.
Doesnt matter if they are optional or not, the money generated from the $15 subscriptions is money.
The "P2P" category is just money made from subscription fees. That category doesnt take into account money generated from cash shop sales.
Superdata caused confusion in people unable to read before when they listed WoW under cash shop sales sometime last year. People grumbled that WoW wasnt a free to play game but the people that actually read the article corrected that that it was only the money generated from WoWs cash shop.
So, I guess we should disregard anything from people who dont bother with reading.
Why is it that when numbers like this come out there is a big uproar about their validity? Can someone really look at these numbers and tell me that they are off their rocker? Even if they are +/- 15% the fact of the matter is that P2P is still on a steady decline and F2P remains on a steady rise. That's not white-knighting or anything else, that's just realistic. The fact that they throw the P2P market a bone with SWTOR and TERA (since they have sub options) is just them doing the P2P market a favour, in my opinion.
I'd be interested in knowing how valid/invalid these numbers are. Anyone have any data on Superdata and their accuracy?
Just Curious.
My problem with superdata research:
If you can't properly categorize your data your analysis of said data becomes incorrect
For being a company that's supposed to give insight on gaming they are very bad at looking at gaming insights for their results.
They are more interested in making news headlights than making good gaming analysis.
Point 1 has been pointed out in pretty much every post regarding superdata research.
Point 2. WoW microtransactions. It quickly draws your attention to WoW having a 54% drop in revenues over 7 months. If you studied WoW at the time you would know that the peak coincided with the release of an expansion. Its an extremely natural thing for a game that sells an expansion will have a peak in revenue. How someone that claim themselves to be a market leader in gaming insight and not mention such a thing is completely beyond me.
Point 3. In the same case they intentionally draw your attention to this peak, fails to mention that it was much lower before this peak and make a graph that only shows a massive drops in revenue while trying to make it look like microtransactions is far more of their revenue than it actually is. Doing such a thing makes it newsworthy which is why their stuff keeps getting reprinted but its a poor way of showing data analysis.
I would rather see them calling their online category something that isn't already defined. I would want them to categorize P2P and F2P properly. I would like them to properly analyze their data and I wish they would look at the history of individual games to support their statistics instead of trying to use their statistics to try to make all sorts of points to create news.
If there was one gaming insight I would love to hear about its why blizzard decided to go for B2P instead of F2P with Overwatch. My own WAG would be that they are disappointed with how heroes of the storm is performing and that they believe that the initial sale together with the popularity of costume dlc will make the game more popular in the long run and therefore bring in more money. Just like superdata research I would come up with a completely different explanation if they would have released the game as F2P.
Oops. forgot to write that I wondered about overwatch.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
If there was one gaming insight I would love to hear about its why blizzard decided to go for B2P instead of F2P with Overwatch. My own WAG would be that they are disappointed with how heroes of the storm is performing and that they believe that the initial sale together with the popularity of costume dlc will make the game more popular in the long run and therefore bring in more money. Just like superdata research I would come up with a completely different explanation if they would have released the game as F2P.
Oops. forgot to write that I wondered about overwatch.
You can't compare a moba and an arena shooter. Hots was a huge success on the casual market. It is not about the cash itself. If they choose to go with a f2p model with Overwatch, they have to sell heroes which is a HUGE P2W system for Overwatch. Because in Overwatch you can change your hero as much as you want in a game. And this is a huge key system in Overwatch. But in a game like Hots you have to pick a hero before the game start then you can't change it even once. That's a huge difference. Because of that they can't sell heroes in Overwatch. And Blizzard is not a company who can be satisfied just with the skin sales. And the second problem is the hackers. Hackers are huge problems in especially fps games unlike mobas. Box price is a huge wall for these hackers. Once they're banned they can't easily create a new account and jump in again. Valve earns TONS of money from Dota but on the other hand Cs Go is still has a box price for the same reason. Even with a box price they can't stop hackers easily because it has a very cheap price unlike Overwatch.
So, you're saying Kiyoris couldn't care less whether the data she/he doesn't agree with is true or not? Okay, so are you saying League of Legends is an mmo? Are you saying SWTOR/Tera are P2P mmos? You're saying both of those things are true?
Don't put words in my mouth. All I've said is that, on the surface, SuperData appears to be a legitimate Marketing Data Supplier. No one so far has come with any proof to the contrary, other than silly graphics and "you can't trust anything you read on the internet" wisdom.
As for how they classify and categorize games, I imagine that if a person were to switch games around, exclude and include others, and make it how they feel it should be it wouldn't change the trends shown. Overall the data in these charts would remain the same. F2P is on the rise and P2P is not.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. You said Kiyoris doesn't care about whether the data is true or not, she just bashes on anything that doesn't agree with them. That's what you were claiming. To make it seem like the data is true, you said those words. So, im questioning if you think the data is true given that they claim SWTOR/Tera are P2P mmos and LoL is an MMO at all.
Tera = P2P mmo...Strike 1. SWTOR = P2P mmo...Strike 2. League of Legends = F2P mmo...Strike 3.
Disregard, nothing to see here.
Uh .... you do realize that SWTOR and Tera have monthly subscription payment plans right?
Most Western "Free to play" MMOs have a $15 per month subscription plan.
So, I guess we should disregard everything you say then.
Uh... you do realize SWTOR/Tera's monthly subscription payment plans are optional right?
Uh.... you do realize in order for a game to be considered P2P, the only way for you to play it is to pay for it right(disregarding promotional trial periods).
So, I guess we should disregard everything you say because you don't understand anything about what P2P means and what optional means.
Doesnt matter if they are optional or not, the money generated from the $15 subscriptions is money.
The "P2P" category is just money made from subscription fees. That category doesnt take into account money generated from cash shop sales.
Superdata caused confusion in people unable to read before when they listed WoW under cash shop sales sometime last year. People grumbled that WoW wasnt a free to play game but the people that actually read the article corrected that that it was only the money generated from WoWs cash shop.
So, I guess we should disregard anything from people who dont bother with reading.
Yes, yes it does matter if they are optional or not. If it was mandatory to pay to play, then you'd be correct, but that isn't the case.
The P2P category is in the name, Pay to Play. The P2P category was not, is not, and will never mean "money made from subscription fees". It means, In order to play the game, you have to pay. End of story. Otherwise you'd get ridiculous monickers like F2PP2PB2PMMO. That's how the world would look if your logic was reflected onto reality, which it isn't.
Superdata has not caused any confusion whatsoever. Superdata is not the topic of discussion. The topic of discussion is this website calling apples potatoes and comparing apples to other apples, but they're really comparing potatoes to apples.
If there was one gaming insight I would love to hear about its why blizzard decided to go for B2P instead of F2P with Overwatch. My own WAG would be that they are disappointed with how heroes of the storm is performing and that they believe that the initial sale together with the popularity of costume dlc will make the game more popular in the long run and therefore bring in more money. Just like superdata research I would come up with a completely different explanation if they would have released the game as F2P.
Oops. forgot to write that I wondered about overwatch.
Can't forget that blizzard did took their risk of making a moba is not like blizzard was only moba out there that didn't try to be dota or LoL. But not sure if it's panning out for them but if there sale not so great pretty much is on there hand trying to get in to the moba market with the risk was very high that it's not going be so big.
So, you're saying Kiyoris couldn't care less whether the data she/he doesn't agree with is true or not? Okay, so are you saying League of Legends is an mmo? Are you saying SWTOR/Tera are P2P mmos? You're saying both of those things are true?
Don't put words in my mouth. All I've said is that, on the surface, SuperData appears to be a legitimate Marketing Data Supplier. No one so far has come with any proof to the contrary, other than silly graphics and "you can't trust anything you read on the internet" wisdom.
As for how they classify and categorize games, I imagine that if a person were to switch games around, exclude and include others, and make it how they feel it should be it wouldn't change the trends shown. Overall the data in these charts would remain the same. F2P is on the rise and P2P is not.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. You said Kiyoris doesn't care about whether the data is true or not, she just bashes on anything that doesn't agree with them. That's what you were claiming. To make it seem like the data is true, you said those words. So, im questioning if you think the data is true given that they claim SWTOR/Tera are P2P mmos and LoL is an MMO at all.
Yes, I do believe the data is correct, I see no reason not to. Certainly, nothing has been shown in this thread so far that would contradict it.
Your main argument here has been over SWTOR and TERA being placed in the P2P category, would placing them in the F2P category suddenly put P2P on top? How about removing all the MOBAs, FPSs and TPSs from the list? No, it would still show the same thing, F2P revenue is rising and P2P revenue is falling.
All of you can argue over which games belong in what categories until your fingers are bloody, it won't change the data. Like it or not, F2P is making more money than any other model pretty much everywhere it exists, and is likely to continue doing so for the foreseeable future.
If they can't even do something as simple as label games in their correct and proper genre, then any data they collected past that is suspect. It's like if someone gathered and presented data on the presidents of the United States, and you saw the Queen of England and Canadian Prime ministers in there, as well as half the US presidents missing from the list...any data past that is completely suspect and not trustworthy.
I guess I just don't see how it's so hard to understand why they group games the way they do. It's just simpler and the only people who have a problem with it are the MMO purists.
If they renamed the 'F2P MMO' and 'P2P MMO' sections to just 'F2P Games' and 'P2P Games' would you still be having a fit? That's the heart of the problem right there, it all comes down to the use of the MMO acronym to cover online PC gaming in general, and because of that your all willing to throw the data out completely. Which, coming full circle in our conversation, is why I say that none of you actually care about the validity of the data, you just want to piss and moan.
I don't know what an MMO purist is. But I do know that people use terms incorrectly all the fucking time. Usually out of ignorance but sometimes deliberately to confuse issues.
Now, having said that, for the life of me I have no idea why any developer would want their game classified as an MMO unless they're living in the past when MMOs had some prestige. These days developers are scrambling all over the place trying to have their game not called an MMO, presumably to avoid the inevitable "Wot? Like WOW?"
Games like LOL, Diablo3, Path of Exile, etc. are not MMOs unless you massage that first M to mean something new. They're definitely MOs but massively multiplayer is not meant to be used in all the new ways I've seen it spun: "It's played by a massive number of players", "the world is massive", "You have a massive number of players in the lobby... and they can see each other!" etc.
Its meaning is clear: when you're playing the game, at least in the open part of the world (that make up the largest part of the game) and not the special purpose instances some MMOs have, you may play alongside large numbers of others who are not grouped with you or against you. It's what makes these things feel alive more than anything else.
I gather from your post though that you would consider people who want apple pies to be made from apples "apple pie purists." To me, and a whole bunch of other people posting in this and all other similar weekly threads, they're just normal, sane people.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
So gw2 is third on pc games but doesn't qualify as an MMO, swtor is third on P2P MMO while being a F2P game. Counter-strike Global Offensive and crossfire are very similar but one is a PC game while the other one is an MMO. Destiny isn't an MMO.
Let's establish this as the truth because Superdata said so.
GW2 is B2P so it doesn't qualify as either P2P or F2P, at least I assume that is how they are thinking. Then again did I think Crossfire was B2P as well? And TOR is clearly F2P or at least Freemium and certainly not P2P.
Lets establish the truth that Superdata have zero clue what a MMO is...
I guess I just don't see how it's so hard to understand why they group games the way they do. It's just simpler and the only people who have a problem with it are the MMO purists.
If they renamed the 'F2P MMO' and 'P2P MMO' sections to just 'F2P Games' and 'P2P Games' would you still be having a fit? That's the heart of the problem right there, it all comes down to the use of the MMO acronym to cover online PC gaming in general, and because of that your all willing to throw the data out completely. Which, coming full circle in our conversation, is why I say that none of you actually care about the validity of the data, you just want to piss and moan.
I don't know what an MMO purist is. But I do know that people use terms incorrectly all the fucking time. Usually out of ignorance but sometimes deliberately to confuse issues.
Now, having said that, for the life of me I have no idea why any developer would want their game classified as an MMO unless they're living in the past when MMOs had some prestige. These days developers are scrambling all over the place trying to have their game not called an MMO, presumably to avoid the inevitable "Wot? Like WOW?"
Games like LOL, Diablo3, Path of Exile, etc. are not MMOs unless you massage that first M to mean something new. They're definitely MOs but massively multiplayer is not meant to be used in all the new ways I've seen it spun: "It's played by a massive number of players", "the world is massive", "You have a massive number of players in the lobby... and they can see each other!" etc.
Its meaning is clear: when you're playing the game, at least in the open part of the world (that make up the largest part of the game) and not the special purpose instances some MMOs have, you may play alongside large numbers of others who are not grouped with you or against you. It's what makes these things feel alive more than anything else.
I gather from your post though that you would consider people who want apple pies to be made from apples "apple pie purists." To me, and a whole bunch of other people posting in this and all other similar weekly threads, they're just normal, sane people.
When I say "MMO purist", I'm talking about the people who feel the need to create a thread every other week asking "why is mmorpg.com covering games that aren't MMOs?". It's the people in this thread, such as yourself, all bent out of shape over the misuse of the acronym.
And yes, SuperData are misusing it, they shouldn't be using 'MMO' as a catchall for online gaming. But, just because they are doesn't mean that their data is wrong. Rename the MMO categories and suddenly nobody around here has anything left to complain about.
Am I the only one that can look past their use of 'MMO' and see that it's about all F2P and P2P games and not just MMOs?
Whatever, I'm done. Clearly plenty of developers, publishers and media think their numbers are relevant and worthwhile or SuperData wouldn't still be in business. What anyone else thinks doesn't really matter.
Show me a developer/publisher that mislabels their game. The only ones who mislabel games are websites like Superdata, NOT the publishers/developers.
League of Legends developer is RIOT games. Wanna know how they classify their game? MOBA. SWTOR's developer is BioWare/EA Games. Wanna know how they classify their game? F2PMMORPG. Tera's developer is Bluehole Studios, with Enmasse Entertainment being the NA/EU publisher. Wanna know how they classify their game? F2PMMORPG.
Again, show me a developer/publisher that mislabels their game.
League's shares of the market are insanely huge. The fact that they list League under "F2PMMO" and not "MOBA" scews the "F2PMMO's" numbers by a significant margin and that's just ONE example of why their data is bullshit. This is why we say their data is defunct.
I guess I just don't see how it's so hard to understand why they group games the way they do. It's just simpler and the only people who have a problem with it are the MMO purists.
If they renamed the 'F2P MMO' and 'P2P MMO' sections to just 'F2P Games' and 'P2P Games' would you still be having a fit? That's the heart of the problem right there, it all comes down to the use of the MMO acronym to cover online PC gaming in general, and because of that your all willing to throw the data out completely. Which, coming full circle in our conversation, is why I say that none of you actually care about the validity of the data, you just want to piss and moan.
I don't know what an MMO purist is. But I do know that people use terms incorrectly all the fucking time. Usually out of ignorance but sometimes deliberately to confuse issues.
Now, having said that, for the life of me I have no idea why any developer would want their game classified as an MMO unless they're living in the past when MMOs had some prestige. These days developers are scrambling all over the place trying to have their game not called an MMO, presumably to avoid the inevitable "Wot? Like WOW?"
Games like LOL, Diablo3, Path of Exile, etc. are not MMOs unless you massage that first M to mean something new. They're definitely MOs but massively multiplayer is not meant to be used in all the new ways I've seen it spun: "It's played by a massive number of players", "the world is massive", "You have a massive number of players in the lobby... and they can see each other!" etc.
Its meaning is clear: when you're playing the game, at least in the open part of the world (that make up the largest part of the game) and not the special purpose instances some MMOs have, you may play alongside large numbers of others who are not grouped with you or against you. It's what makes these things feel alive more than anything else.
I gather from your post though that you would consider people who want apple pies to be made from apples "apple pie purists." To me, and a whole bunch of other people posting in this and all other similar weekly threads, they're just normal, sane people.
When I say "MMO purist", I'm talking about the people who feel the need to create a thread every other week asking "why is mmorpg.com covering games that aren't MMOs?". It's the people in this thread, such as yourself, all bent out of shape over the misuse of the acronym.
And yes, SuperData are misusing it, they shouldn't be using 'MMO' as a catchall for online gaming. But, just because they are doesn't mean that their data is wrong. Rename the MMO categories and suddenly nobody around here has anything left to complain about.
Am I the only one that can look past their use of 'MMO' and see that it's about all F2P and P2P games and not just MMOs?
Whatever, I'm done. Clearly plenty of developers, publishers and media think their numbers are relevant and worthwhile or SuperData wouldn't still be in business. What anyone else thinks doesn't really matter.
Show me a developer/publisher that mislabels their game. The only ones who mislabel games are websites like Superdata, NOT the publishers/developers.
League of Legends developer is RIOT games. Wanna know how they classify their game? MOBA. SWTOR's developer is BioWare/EA Games. Wanna know how they classify their game? F2PMMORPG. Tera's developer is Bluehole Studios, with Enmasse Entertainment being the NA/EU publisher. Wanna know how they classify their game? F2PMMORPG.
Again, show me a developer/publisher that mislabels their game.
League's shares of the market are insanely huge. The fact that they list League under "F2PMMO" and not "MOBA" scews the "F2PMMO's" numbers by a significant margin and that's just ONE example of why their data is bullshit. This is why we say their data is defunct.
Superdata's statements tend to be opinion pieces, take them as you will, i don't suggest however, that their opinions be treated as facts, they aren't, that their 'data' is heavily skewed as it is mostly from the mobile market, is perhaps something that should also be kept in mind.
I guess I just don't see how it's so hard to understand why they group games the way they do. It's just simpler and the only people who have a problem with it are the MMO purists.
If they renamed the 'F2P MMO' and 'P2P MMO' sections to just 'F2P Games' and 'P2P Games' would you still be having a fit? That's the heart of the problem right there, it all comes down to the use of the MMO acronym to cover online PC gaming in general, and because of that your all willing to throw the data out completely. Which, coming full circle in our conversation, is why I say that none of you actually care about the validity of the data, you just want to piss and moan.
I don't know what an MMO purist is. But I do know that people use terms incorrectly all the fucking time. Usually out of ignorance but sometimes deliberately to confuse issues.
Now, having said that, for the life of me I have no idea why any developer would want their game classified as an MMO unless they're living in the past when MMOs had some prestige. These days developers are scrambling all over the place trying to have their game not called an MMO, presumably to avoid the inevitable "Wot? Like WOW?"
Games like LOL, Diablo3, Path of Exile, etc. are not MMOs unless you massage that first M to mean something new. They're definitely MOs but massively multiplayer is not meant to be used in all the new ways I've seen it spun: "It's played by a massive number of players", "the world is massive", "You have a massive number of players in the lobby... and they can see each other!" etc.
Its meaning is clear: when you're playing the game, at least in the open part of the world (that make up the largest part of the game) and not the special purpose instances some MMOs have, you may play alongside large numbers of others who are not grouped with you or against you. It's what makes these things feel alive more than anything else.
I gather from your post though that you would consider people who want apple pies to be made from apples "apple pie purists." To me, and a whole bunch of other people posting in this and all other similar weekly threads, they're just normal, sane people.
When I say "MMO purist", I'm talking about the people who feel the need to create a thread every other week asking "why is mmorpg.com covering games that aren't MMOs?". It's the people in this thread, such as yourself, all bent out of shape over the misuse of the acronym.
And yes, SuperData are misusing it, they shouldn't be using 'MMO' as a catchall for online gaming. But, just because they are doesn't mean that their data is wrong. Rename the MMO categories and suddenly nobody around here has anything left to complain about.
Am I the only one that can look past their use of 'MMO' and see that it's about all F2P and P2P games and not just MMOs?
That's a whole different crowd you're talking about. MMORPG.COM has been covering games that are not MMOs for quite a while and it's a damn good thing too because it covers them from our, MMO fan, perspective. I don't know anyone who plays MMOs exclusively. Most of us here are RPG fans too and we play all kinds of other games. Yeah some new people here don't get that but that's a whole different story.
As to the F2P vs. P2P game thing. I'm not questioning Superdata's numbers. But I do have to wonder why they insist in mis-categorizing non MMOs in their reports. I don't know who finds it useful to think of LOL and other MOBAs or the myriad of other multiplayer online categories as MMOs. Do you find that useful? Do developers or publishers?
To me that just creates confusion and undermines what is otherwise pretty solid data.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Why is it that when numbers like this come out there is a big uproar about their validity? Can someone really look at these numbers and tell me that they are off their rocker? Even if they are +/- 15% the fact of the matter is that P2P is still on a steady decline and F2P remains on a steady rise. That's not white-knighting or anything else, that's just realistic. The fact that they throw the P2P market a bone with SWTOR and TERA (since they have sub options) is just them doing the P2P market a favour, in my opinion.
I'd be interested in knowing how valid/invalid these numbers are. Anyone have any data on Superdata and their accuracy?
Just Curious.
My problem with superdata research:
If you can't properly categorize your data your analysis of said data becomes incorrect
For being a company that's supposed to give insight on gaming they are very bad at looking at gaming insights for their results.
They are more interested in making news headlights than making good gaming analysis.
Point 1 has been pointed out in pretty much every post regarding superdata research.
Point 2. WoW microtransactions. It quickly draws your attention to WoW having a 54% drop in revenues over 7 months. If you studied WoW at the time you would know that the peak coincided with the release of an expansion. Its an extremely natural thing for a game that sells an expansion will have a peak in revenue. How someone that claim themselves to be a market leader in gaming insight and not mention such a thing is completely beyond me.
Point 3. In the same case they intentionally draw your attention to this peak, fails to mention that it was much lower before this peak and make a graph that only shows a massive drops in revenue while trying to make it look like microtransactions is far more of their revenue than it actually is. Doing such a thing makes it newsworthy which is why their stuff keeps getting reprinted but its a poor way of showing data analysis.
I would rather see them calling their online category something that isn't already defined. I would want them to categorize P2P and F2P properly. I would like them to properly analyze their data and I wish they would look at the history of individual games to support their statistics instead of trying to use their statistics to try to make all sorts of points to create news.
If there was one gaming insight I would love to hear about its why blizzard decided to go for B2P instead of F2P with Overwatch. My own WAG would be that they are disappointed with how heroes of the storm is performing and that they believe that the initial sale together with the popularity of costume dlc will make the game more popular in the long run and therefore bring in more money. Just like superdata research I would come up with a completely different explanation if they would have released the game as F2P.
Oops. forgot to write that I wondered about overwatch.
Yeah, I get the categorization, but I'd be lying if I said that I felt that the industry at large categorized it right. Both SWTOR and TERA are hybrid games, meaning that people do subscribe to them. Maybe splitting out that category is what's best, but what does the P2P category look like, then? One game? Also, does WoW's cash shop revenue get categorized under P2P since WoW is a P2P game? There are problems with the categorization of revenues, I agree, but like I said, SWTOR and TERA are effectively throwing P2P a bone and actually inflating any P2P numbers that there are. If WoW was the only P2P accounted for then what are we talking about? Half the revenues?
As far as making headlines go...... They're a media company. I think that if nothing else, there is a constant and continual question of journalistic integrity these days, where anyone in new or media can be scooped by some pimple-faced kid on social media. So fantastical stories aren't unexpected. The data in and of itself, though, doesn't change the reality of the situation of P2P.
I guess I just don't see how it's so hard to understand why they group games the way they do. It's just simpler and the only people who have a problem with it are the MMO purists.
If they renamed the 'F2P MMO' and 'P2P MMO' sections to just 'F2P Games' and 'P2P Games' would you still be having a fit? That's the heart of the problem right there, it all comes down to the use of the MMO acronym to cover online PC gaming in general, and because of that your all willing to throw the data out completely. Which, coming full circle in our conversation, is why I say that none of you actually care about the validity of the data, you just want to piss and moan.
I don't know what an MMO purist is. But I do know that people use terms incorrectly all the fucking time. Usually out of ignorance but sometimes deliberately to confuse issues.
Now, having said that, for the life of me I have no idea why any developer would want their game classified as an MMO unless they're living in the past when MMOs had some prestige. These days developers are scrambling all over the place trying to have their game not called an MMO, presumably to avoid the inevitable "Wot? Like WOW?"
Games like LOL, Diablo3, Path of Exile, etc. are not MMOs unless you massage that first M to mean something new. They're definitely MOs but massively multiplayer is not meant to be used in all the new ways I've seen it spun: "It's played by a massive number of players", "the world is massive", "You have a massive number of players in the lobby... and they can see each other!" etc.
Its meaning is clear: when you're playing the game, at least in the open part of the world (that make up the largest part of the game) and not the special purpose instances some MMOs have, you may play alongside large numbers of others who are not grouped with you or against you. It's what makes these things feel alive more than anything else.
I gather from your post though that you would consider people who want apple pies to be made from apples "apple pie purists." To me, and a whole bunch of other people posting in this and all other similar weekly threads, they're just normal, sane people.
When I say "MMO purist", I'm talking about the people who feel the need to create a thread every other week asking "why is mmorpg.com covering games that aren't MMOs?". It's the people in this thread, such as yourself, all bent out of shape over the misuse of the acronym.
And yes, SuperData are misusing it, they shouldn't be using 'MMO' as a catchall for online gaming. But, just because they are doesn't mean that their data is wrong. Rename the MMO categories and suddenly nobody around here has anything left to complain about.
Am I the only one that can look past their use of 'MMO' and see that it's about all F2P and P2P games and not just MMOs?
Whatever, I'm done. Clearly plenty of developers, publishers and media think their numbers are relevant and worthwhile or SuperData wouldn't still be in business. What anyone else thinks doesn't really matter.
Oh, one thing that is really not in short supply are suckers. Who think companies buy their own data from Superdata.
If EA and AB decide they want to exchange info theyll do it by themselves, under strictly regulated conditions.
What they WONT do is freely share their confidential data with some third party who will freely publish it.
As to the F2P vs. P2P game thing. I'm not questioning Superdata's numbers. But I do have to wonder why they insist in mis-categorizing non MMOs in their reports. ...
To me that just creates confusion and undermines what is otherwise pretty solid data.
My only explanation for the SuperData's continued skewing of the data is that they are trying to make F2P look massively attractive.
That could be because they also sell F2P monetization consultancy services. The bigger they make the pot-of-gold appear, the more likely it is that they can sell their services to someone who wants a slice of this massive cash cow.
If they're not deliberately obfuscating the data, then it means they don't really understand what their own data means, which I doubt. Anyone involved in the industry would know that there's a large difference between a MOBA and an MMORPG. So who SuperData are selling their analysis to is somewhat of a mystery to me...
F2P is the cancer of the genre! I have no clue how anyone thinks differently??
It's not really, company that prey on people wallets mainly are the cancer if F2P was not around company will try make cheap P2P mmo like they did in the pass. Like they do on with game not even mmo thats company just end up making cheap bad games just get people to buy it for the full cost there mostly now moving over to mobile it's the next step.
As to the F2P vs. P2P game thing. I'm not questioning Superdata's numbers. But I do have to wonder why they insist in mis-categorizing non MMOs in their reports. ...
To me that just creates confusion and undermines what is otherwise pretty solid data.
My only explanation for the SuperData's continued skewing of the data is that they are trying to make F2P look massively attractive.
That could be because they also sell F2P monetization consultancy services. The bigger they make the pot-of-gold appear, the more likely it is that they can sell their services to someone who wants a slice of this massive cash cow.
If they're not deliberately obfuscating the data, then it means they don't really understand what their own data means, which I doubt. Anyone involved in the industry would know that there's a large difference between a MOBA and an MMORPG. So who SuperData are selling their analysis to is somewhat of a mystery to me...
They actually have a list of definitions and do class MOBA as an MMO on their site. I don't disagree, though. Let's just chop the MMO off there and call it P2P vs F2P games. There's actually a good definition in there for why SWTOR and TERA are categorized the way they are as well.
So gw2 is third on pc games but doesn't qualify as an MMO, swtor is third on P2P MMO while being a F2P game. Counter-strike Global Offensive and crossfire are very similar but one is a PC game while the other one is an MMO. Destiny isn't an MMO.
Let's establish this as the truth because Superdata said so.
GW2 is B2P so it doesn't qualify as either P2P or F2P, at least I assume that is how they are thinking. Then again did I think Crossfire was B2P as well? And TOR is clearly F2P or at least Freemium and certainly not P2P.
Lets establish the truth that Superdata have zero clue what a MMO is...
To be fair you can probably get a PhD for a paper on how to categorize MMOs and Online games and their revenues model.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Comments
This type of post should be all that is needed to clear up this fairly new and unnecessary silly confusion, but what we're seeing here is case where manipulative marketing is kicking logic's ass in a scary way.
"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
I wouldnt trust any of your ratings, and i would rate your ratings lowest quality (as you yourself admit you just glance at them and rate them, sorry, but thats utter c**p and thats also part of the problem)
And i bet you wouldnt like the "right" game. probably proclim it "biggest evil that saw the light of day"
Bloodborne is an MMO
Call of Duty is an MMO
FIFA is an MMO
...
Yeah... sure...
The "P2P" category is just money made from subscription fees. That category doesnt take into account money generated from cash shop sales.
Superdata caused confusion in people unable to read before when they listed WoW under cash shop sales sometime last year. People grumbled that WoW wasnt a free to play game but the people that actually read the article corrected that that it was only the money generated from WoWs cash shop.
So, I guess we should disregard anything from people who dont bother with reading.
- If you can't properly categorize your data your analysis of said data becomes incorrect
- For being a company that's supposed to give insight on gaming they are very bad at looking at gaming insights for their results.
- They are more interested in making news headlights than making good gaming analysis.
Point 1 has been pointed out in pretty much every post regarding superdata research.Point 2. WoW microtransactions. It quickly draws your attention to WoW having a 54% drop in revenues over 7 months. If you studied WoW at the time you would know that the peak coincided with the release of an expansion. Its an extremely natural thing for a game that sells an expansion will have a peak in revenue. How someone that claim themselves to be a market leader in gaming insight and not mention such a thing is completely beyond me.
Point 3. In the same case they intentionally draw your attention to this peak, fails to mention that it was much lower before this peak and make a graph that only shows a massive drops in revenue while trying to make it look like microtransactions is far more of their revenue than it actually is. Doing such a thing makes it newsworthy which is why their stuff keeps getting reprinted but its a poor way of showing data analysis.
I would rather see them calling their online category something that isn't already defined. I would want them to categorize P2P and F2P properly. I would like them to properly analyze their data and I wish they would look at the history of individual games to support their statistics instead of trying to use their statistics to try to make all sorts of points to create news.
If there was one gaming insight I would love to hear about its why blizzard decided to go for B2P instead of F2P with Overwatch. My own WAG would be that they are disappointed with how heroes of the storm is performing and that they believe that the initial sale together with the popularity of costume dlc will make the game more popular in the long run and therefore bring in more money. Just like superdata research I would come up with a completely different explanation if they would have released the game as F2P.
Oops. forgot to write that I wondered about overwatch.
Yes, yes it does matter if they are optional or not. If it was mandatory to pay to play, then you'd be correct, but that isn't the case.
The P2P category is in the name, Pay to Play. The P2P category was not, is not, and will never mean "money made from subscription fees". It means, In order to play the game, you have to pay. End of story. Otherwise you'd get ridiculous monickers like F2PP2PB2PMMO. That's how the world would look if your logic was reflected onto reality, which it isn't.
Superdata has not caused any confusion whatsoever. Superdata is not the topic of discussion. The topic of discussion is this website calling apples potatoes and comparing apples to other apples, but they're really comparing potatoes to apples.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Now, having said that, for the life of me I have no idea why any developer would want their game classified as an MMO unless they're living in the past when MMOs had some prestige. These days developers are scrambling all over the place trying to have their game not called an MMO, presumably to avoid the inevitable "Wot? Like WOW?"
Games like LOL, Diablo3, Path of Exile, etc. are not MMOs unless you massage that first M to mean something new. They're definitely MOs but massively multiplayer is not meant to be used in all the new ways I've seen it spun: "It's played by a massive number of players", "the world is massive", "You have a massive number of players in the lobby... and they can see each other!" etc.
Its meaning is clear: when you're playing the game, at least in the open part of the world (that make up the largest part of the game) and not the special purpose instances some MMOs have, you may play alongside large numbers of others who are not grouped with you or against you. It's what makes these things feel alive more than anything else.
I gather from your post though that you would consider people who want apple pies to be made from apples "apple pie purists." To me, and a whole bunch of other people posting in this and all other similar weekly threads, they're just normal, sane people.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Lets establish the truth that Superdata have zero clue what a MMO is...
League of Legends developer is RIOT games. Wanna know how they classify their game? MOBA.
SWTOR's developer is BioWare/EA Games. Wanna know how they classify their game? F2PMMORPG.
Tera's developer is Bluehole Studios, with Enmasse Entertainment being the NA/EU publisher. Wanna know how they classify their game? F2PMMORPG.
Again, show me a developer/publisher that mislabels their game.
League's shares of the market are insanely huge. The fact that they list League under "F2PMMO" and not "MOBA" scews the "F2PMMO's" numbers by a significant margin and that's just ONE example of why their data is bullshit. This is why we say their data is defunct.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
As to the F2P vs. P2P game thing. I'm not questioning Superdata's numbers. But I do have to wonder why they insist in mis-categorizing non MMOs in their reports. I don't know who finds it useful to think of LOL and other MOBAs or the myriad of other multiplayer online categories as MMOs. Do you find that useful? Do developers or publishers?
To me that just creates confusion and undermines what is otherwise pretty solid data.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Yeah, I get the categorization, but I'd be lying if I said that I felt that the industry at large categorized it right. Both SWTOR and TERA are hybrid games, meaning that people do subscribe to them. Maybe splitting out that category is what's best, but what does the P2P category look like, then? One game? Also, does WoW's cash shop revenue get categorized under P2P since WoW is a P2P game? There are problems with the categorization of revenues, I agree, but like I said, SWTOR and TERA are effectively throwing P2P a bone and actually inflating any P2P numbers that there are. If WoW was the only P2P accounted for then what are we talking about? Half the revenues?
As far as making headlines go...... They're a media company. I think that if nothing else, there is a constant and continual question of journalistic integrity these days, where anyone in new or media can be scooped by some pimple-faced kid on social media. So fantastical stories aren't unexpected. The data in and of itself, though, doesn't change the reality of the situation of P2P.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
If EA and AB decide they want to exchange info theyll do it by themselves, under strictly regulated conditions.
What they WONT do is freely share their confidential data with some third party who will freely publish it.
That could be because they also sell F2P monetization consultancy services. The bigger they make the pot-of-gold appear, the more likely it is that they can sell their services to someone who wants a slice of this massive cash cow.
If they're not deliberately obfuscating the data, then it means they don't really understand what their own data means, which I doubt. Anyone involved in the industry would know that there's a large difference between a MOBA and an MMORPG. So who SuperData are selling their analysis to is somewhat of a mystery to me...
They actually have a list of definitions and do class MOBA as an MMO on their site. I don't disagree, though. Let's just chop the MMO off there and call it P2P vs F2P games. There's actually a good definition in there for why SWTOR and TERA are categorized the way they are as well.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders