I'll ask a simple question. Do those games "sustain" their profit?
When games turn f2p, they'll have a "spurt" of new players. And their profit spike. That don't necessary mean it sustain.
Also a f2p games where the majority of the players pay subscription.... I'm not sure I should call it f2p. It just mean it have extended trial.
I'm not saying what you said is wrong. I'm just saying the "big" number is a bit misleading.
Insofar as any game "sustains" a profit? Yes.
In the most literal sense of "sustain"? No, of course not because no game works like that.
A fact of games is that they don't sustain. They gradually lose players all the time. WOW was dramatically more successful than most games, but we've seen its peak and the long decay of players (sometimes referred to as the "long tail" due to how it looks in a graph) which is the exact same general shape of every other game out there.
If you're unfamiliar with this nigh-universal trend in gaming, a simple way to understand it is to consider how many 15+ year old games you're still playing just as avidly as you did when they launched. Almost nobody plays that long. Now how many 10+ year old games are you playing? Still almost nobody, but more than before. 5+ year old games? More players. 2+ year old games? More players. 1+ year old games? Quite a few more. 1 month old games? LOTS!
And if you graph that out in chronological order, you end up with exactly the playerbase decline I'm talking about.
Obviously if you're a 15+ year old game with only 0.01% of your playerbase remaining, that basically amounts to 0.01% of your revenue and this is why population decay is relevant to how much profit a game sustains. Relative population decay isn't really going to change by being F2P. Absolute population decay is though (because a F2P game will attract a much larger playerbase because it's free to play, which means when a game bleeds x% of its players every month the actual number of players will be higher.) That higher population and the higher max pay ceiling are the two reasons F2P makes more money -- with any given game design.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
WoW in of itself isn't really the problem with MMOs these days. The real problem is that all these other greedy companies lick their lips when they see WoW's income potential, and want to get in on that. So, they go and make a game, and not because they love gaming and want to share their own story, but because they want in on the money. So, we get all these games that emulate WoW and really bring nothing new to the table, we get scams like "F2P" and DLC, all that.
So, no, WoW isn't the problem. The problem is that all the developers who love gaming have died off and retired. Now we have the generation of wallet-humping, greedy suits that want to get in on the video game market to make some of the big bucks like WoW does.
Now, if a developer like old Nintendo (even Nintendo is going downhill) came around and released even one quality game that just glowed with all the love and passion the developers put into it, it would be incredibly popular, and other companies would have to do the same thing to compete with them. Ubisoft and EA would cease to exist, since the people there really do not care, and companies like old Nintendo, SEGA and all them would rise up and make gaming a wonderful place again. ^ ^
Wishful thinking, I know, but I can dream. I'm just losing a lot of faith in gaming. : /
I agree with the sentiment, but the big names and innovators in the MMO genre have not died off or retired.
Almost every one of them are creating new MMORPGs. Sadly though, most of those games have to rely on crowdfunding or small investments (Crowfall, Pantheon: ROTF, Shroud of the Avatar, Camelot Unchained), because the money behind the industry do not invest in any game that isn't emulating WoW or a potential "WoW-killer."
While I don't know that these indie games on the horizon will bring in a golden age, I think there is at least hope that we may see a resurgence where the genre brings back the old players as well as many new into a different MMORPG experience.
WoW doesnt need to go anywhere, not that I like it or play it but it's the game companies that need to stop being greedy trying to get those WoW numbers they never will by copying WoW. WoW didnt get those numbers by making an EQ clone. If anything its the lack of vision that needs to die.
WoW didnt get those numbers by making an EQ clone. If anything its the lack of vision that needs to die.
may be the visions is don't make classical mmorpgs anymore.
It is not the visions of wow .. it is the vision of Blizz. Aside from HoTS (which is not a bad game), every single game they made is successful.
May be the problem is that mmorpgs have run their course, and now it is time for something new. May be Overwatch will do to online shooter (note that it is not a FPS) what WoW does not mmorpgs.
WoW doesnt need to go anywhere, not that I like it or play it but it's the game companies that need to stop being greedy trying to get those WoW numbers they never will by copying WoW. WoW didnt get those numbers by making an EQ clone. If anything its the lack of vision that needs to die.
Agreed. It does ultimately come down to developers trying something new. With money being the end goal, however, of course they'll continue to copy WoW so long as it's the big dog in the market. I am hoping that, as its numbers fade, developers start feeling safe exploring outside that little box though.
Agreed. It does ultimately come down to developers trying something new. With money being the end goal, however, of course they'll continue to copy WoW so long as it's the big dog in the market. I am hoping that, as its numbers fade, developers start feeling safe exploring outside that little box though.
wait .. who is still copying wow? Haven't all the AAA devs already moved onto some other online games?
I'll ask a simple question. Do those games "sustain" their profit?
When games turn f2p, they'll have a "spurt" of new players. And their profit spike. That don't necessary mean it sustain.
Also a f2p games where the majority of the players pay subscription.... I'm not sure I should call it f2p. It just mean it have extended trial.
I'm not saying what you said is wrong. I'm just saying the "big" number is a bit misleading.
Insofar as any game "sustains" a profit? Yes.
In the most literal sense of "sustain"? No, of course not because no game works like that.
That didn't answer the question it would seem. That seemed to be a side tangent on overall income, less on the curve involved in how many new players join the title and contribute to that long arc versus just being a temporary spike in it.
And reality is a lot of F2P games do treat their content as a demo with premium subscription features. It becomes a harder distinction with paid expansion content.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
The golden age started in Nov. 2004 when WoW was released...
The golden age for developers perhaps, but I think OP is referring to a different kind of golden age, one in which variety, innovation, and gameplay are revered, not mass traffic of mainstream casuals.
I'll ask a simple question. Do those games "sustain" their profit?
When games turn f2p, they'll have a "spurt" of new players. And their profit spike. That don't necessary mean it sustain.
Also a f2p games where the majority of the players pay subscription.... I'm not sure I should call it f2p. It just mean it have extended trial.
I'm not saying what you said is wrong. I'm just saying the "big" number is a bit misleading.
Insofar as any game "sustains" a profit? Yes.
In the most literal sense of "sustain"? No, of course not because no game works like that.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying those numbers may not be as big as you listed.
When anything go on sell it'll spike in profit. I suppose you don't even have any idea how much money those games you listed are making now. Except maybe SWTOR.
And unless you are a market researcher, I would say I believe people working in the business more. So when you say Wow and FFIV would be better as f2p games, I dont' buy that. They might be consider it, but at least now isn't the right time.
Because really, almost all the games you listed started out as subscription. They believe they should start out selling the box, and get a few month of subscriber before they change the plan.
Sure WoW did bring a log of people into the genre, and all the bad copies
weren't Blizzards fault.
But now WoW is doing nothing for the gaming industry. It isn't providing
anything new and refreshing. And because it does still provide an acceptable
gaming experience with lots of other players, what every MMO needs, it means
that any new game doesn't get much of a chance because it's so easy to return
to WoW.
A lot of new games are coming out which much more than WoW had at its release,
but they never get off the ground because it's hard to compete with 10+ years
of content while under pressure from ignorant investors and publishers. WoW is
still over all a monopoly, which isn't good for business. Blizzard doesn't need
to up it's game (they will go through the motions to please their investors),
and to crush any possible competition all they have to do is release an
expansion around the same time a promising new game is released.
Obviously it isn't solely WoW's fault. Since it came out all the copies try to
take the crown without bothering to put the investment in to make a worthy
competitor. If WoW were to finally ride into the sunset though, a portion of it’s
current population would look for other similar games, and that influx of money
could make those other games better, and in a few years they game could really develop
into an impressive title.
A lot of coulds and possiblys, but that’s better than the outlook we have now.
The golden age started in Nov. 2004 when WoW was released...
The golden age for developers perhaps, but I think OP is referring to a different kind of golden age, one in which variety, innovation, and gameplay are revered, not mass traffic of mainstream casuals.
You either never played WoW or are biased if you think that gameplay wasn't revered in WoW.
That's kinda subjective to user experience.
Like a person coming from Asheron's Call to WoW could be of the opinion that the trade-off Blizzard made between the combat mechanics and the other systems wasn't worth it, and that not having things like projectile modeling, body part hit zones, etc is a step down.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
The golden age started in Nov. 2004 when WoW was released...
The golden age for developers perhaps, but I think OP is referring to a different kind of golden age, one in which variety, innovation, and gameplay are revered, not mass traffic of mainstream casuals.
You either never played WoW or are biased if you think that gameplay wasn't revered in WoW.
That's kinda subjective to user experience.
Like a person coming from Asheron's Call to WoW could be of the opinion that the trade-off Blizzard made between the combat mechanics and the other systems wasn't worth it, and that not having things like projectile modeling, body part hit zones, etc is a step down.
You can still find players hiding in dark corners of the internet that really loved critical hit systems. Or breakage, or dragging, or encumbrance-based storage, or full loot, or FFAPVP, or nearly any system ever tried in some minority title anywhen.
But that doesn't mean any of those were either a good or bad ideas. Just locally popular ones, niche fans.
If fan dollars are the only objective way to measure success, those ideas got decimated and then dumped.
But clearly objective criteria aren't all that matters at the level of the individual fan.
"What I learned to love first and most," tends to be the most common subjective criteria.
You can still find players hiding in dark corners of the internet that really loved critical hit systems. Or breakage, or dragging, or encumbrance-based storage, or full loot, or FFAPVP, or nearly any system ever tried in some minority title anywhen.
But that doesn't mean any of those were either a good or bad ideas. Just locally popular ones, niche fans.
If fan dollars are the only objective way to measure success, those ideas got decimated and then dumped.
But clearly objective criteria aren't all that matters at the level of the individual fan.
"What I learned to love first and most," tends to be the most common subjective criteria.
That kinda was my point. Familiarity and user experience dictates what they "revere" more than any objective value.
Conjecture beyond that is pretty much just speculative commentary. Popular vote went to the product that had the best mix of opportunity, presence, marketing, and general design. Whether other systems were good or bad isn't even quantifiable when the thing you compare it to is such an anomaly.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I'll ask a simple question. Do those games "sustain" their profit?
When games turn f2p, they'll have a "spurt" of new players. And their profit spike. That don't necessary mean it sustain.
Also a f2p games where the majority of the players pay subscription.... I'm not sure I should call it f2p. It just mean it have extended trial.
I'm not saying what you said is wrong. I'm just saying the "big" number is a bit misleading.
Insofar as any game "sustains" a profit? Yes.
In the most literal sense of "sustain"? No, of course not because no game works like that.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying those numbers may not be as big as you listed.
When anything go on sell it'll spike in profit. I suppose you don't even have any idea how much money those games you listed are making now. Except maybe SWTOR.
And unless you are a market researcher, I would say I believe people working in the business more. So when you say Wow and FFIV would be better as f2p games, I dont' buy that. They might be consider it, but at least now isn't the right time.
Because really, almost all the games you listed started out as subscription. They believe they should start out selling the box, and get a few month of subscriber before they change the plan.
I am also going to throw in my (very worthless) opinion here.
Based on what I have been seeing in the past couple years here, I believe the F2P business model in the West is going to see a decline over the next few years. Just like what happened with the Sub model. I am seeing an increase in player awareness of the impact RMT has on the quality of their experience and how game development shifts from quality content to generating revenue. And I think a lot of games are getting fed up. Look at the thread that got posted today about Asta.
Oh brother I hate to tell you but you missed the Golden Age Of MMO's by about 5-10 years. F2P model is solid in a few games the problem is maintaining and some developers need to understand to get interest you do not need to redefine the wheel with every game in every aspect. MMO's will maintain simple populations for the next few years with nothing really serious for at least 5 years. This is coming from someone who has been noted with over 50,000 hours and over 1500 games played. Me
wow wow wow wow wow.. Good MMo Games were before wow and good mmo games have been after, wow is just another good mmo. Stop thinking wow is the centre of gaming and you might enjoy mmo's more
I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying those numbers may not be as big as you listed.
When anything go on sell it'll spike in profit. I suppose you don't even have any idea how much money those games you listed are making now. Except maybe SWTOR.
And unless you are a market researcher, I would say I believe people working in the business more. So when you say Wow and FFIV would be better as f2p games, I dont' buy that. They might be consider it, but at least now isn't the right time.
Because really, almost all the games you listed started out as subscription. They believe they should start out selling the box, and get a few month of subscriber before they change the plan
Of course F2P doesn't make 200% more profit consistently over the life of a product. The numbers were at the time of a switch, meaning they compared a decayed subscriber population against the initial spike of F2P numbers.
Doesn't change the fact that the long-term value is worth it: remember DDO and LOTRO are from the same company, so Turbine had over a year of DDO being F2P to learn the long-term value, and then still chose to switch LOTRO. Personally I'd guess that in the long-run these games make 20-75% more (varying by game) with F2P over the long run. Much lower than 200%, but obviously an absolute no-brainer decision.
The evidence I've presented isn't a perfect picture. It doesn't cover ongoing revenue. (Though we know population decays in all games, and population will be much lower in a P2P game, and gamers get at least SOME value out of being in a well-populated game (otherwise they wouldn't periodically ask if x game is dead). So F2P has the slight advantage insofar as a high game population has value -- I think it probably doesn't have a lot of value, but is certainly a non-zero positive value.)
Meanwhile the evidence of P2P's superiority is non-existent. It literally hasn't surfaced in the thread so far.
Given one side has rather good evidence supporting its position and the other side has no evidence, it seems a bit of a doomed proposition to argue the other side, yeah? At least unless you can find evidence (and again, I welcome evidence. I'm not going for Confirmation Bias here, I want to know the actual truth of the matter.)
I'm not a market researcher.
...but I am a professional game designer who's worked on F2P games the last ~6 years (~16 years total industry experience). I work alongside Product Managers who know this stuff inside and out, make decisions based on evidence, and actively share their knowledge.
Before the defensive "appeal to authority" deflection, keep in mind the core of my argument was led by evidence. (Granted I often echo this frustration that people are way too quick to reject the ideas of experts nowadays.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'll admit, I only read the first few posts in this thread. That said, I don't play WoW. I played for years on private servers up until around Burning Legion first came out. Beyond that, I'll say, I'd kinda LIKE to play WoW now, but I know the basic game and I don't wanna shell out money for 20 or so expansion packs in order to play current content. So however good WoW may or may not be, it's dead to me until WoW 2 comes out.
You know what really amazes me about Blizzard is they let so many private servers run and take players and money from them. I can't understand why they are so easy going when they could shut them down in a day.
Shutting down private servers angers people.
For instance, for all the hate SoE and Smed got, he was well aware of certain servers/projects and was pretty obvious about his support for them even if he had to be a little cryptic with that support. And i bet because of that EQ still gets some business by people playing both versions.
Movie and music companies going after torrent sites annoy torrent users too, doesn't stop them.
The massive surge in private servers is at least partially responsible for the sub drops. Which is why it amazes me they do n't go after them.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying those numbers may not be as big as you listed.
When anything go on sell it'll spike in profit. I suppose you don't even have any idea how much money those games you listed are making now. Except maybe SWTOR.
And unless you are a market researcher, I would say I believe people working in the business more. So when you say Wow and FFIV would be better as f2p games, I dont' buy that. They might be consider it, but at least now isn't the right time.
Because really, almost all the games you listed started out as subscription. They believe they should start out selling the box, and get a few month of subscriber before they change the plan
Of course F2P doesn't make 200% more profit consistently over the life of a product. The numbers were at the time of a switch, meaning they compared a decayed subscriber population against the initial spike of F2P numbers.
Doesn't change the fact that the long-term value is worth it: remember DDO and LOTRO are from the same company, so Turbine had over a year of DDO being F2P to learn the long-term value, and then still chose to switch LOTRO. Personally I'd guess that in the long-run these games make 20-75% more (varying by game) with F2P over the long run. Much lower than 200%, but obviously an absolute no-brainer decision.
Given one side has rather good evidence supporting its position and the other side has no evidence, it seems a bit of a doomed proposition to argue the other side, yeah? At least unless you can find evidence (and again, I welcome evidence. I'm not going for Confirmation Bias here, I want to know the actual truth of the matter.)
Before the defensive "appeal to authority" deflection, keep in mind the core of my argument was led by evidence. (Granted I often echo this frustration that people are way too quick to reject the ideas of experts nowadays.)
I think you are trying to persuade F2P is the way to go. I didn't even say anything about that.
All I'm saying is the market is usually right.
There are still subscription games out there. There are new games coming out that going to be subscription games. In fact, all the games you listed was subscription games. Are you telling me all of them are wrong?
Most likely non of them are wrong. The market is usually right.
You'll probably keep telling me with evidence F2P is better since they all switched. I'll probably response, the market is usually right. So they make the decision to switch.
I'm not particularly fond of "Prince", for instance, but I'm able to recognize that he is a great musician and showman. I could list dozens of similar examples.
One should be able to not be a fan of WoW at all, yet not post nonsense like gameplay not being revered by the WoW developers. Gameplay is one of the major reasons why the game became such a success right after its launch in 2004, and I daresay even during its beta.
That's being objective, and not just a mindless Internet game basher/hater.
It's fair to say they considered gameplay as much as any other facet of the game. Assumptions beyond that however, remains as much nonsense as the opposite or anything else would.
Objectivity only states what can be known to be accurate.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I think you are trying to persuade F2P is the way to go. I didn't even say anything about that.
Axe is very distinctly opinionated towards telling everyone F2P is the right thing to do. It's not a rational discussion with him and he'll bring it up regardless of if it relates to the conversation.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Comments
In the most literal sense of "sustain"? No, of course not because no game works like that.
A fact of games is that they don't sustain. They gradually lose players all the time. WOW was dramatically more successful than most games, but we've seen its peak and the long decay of players (sometimes referred to as the "long tail" due to how it looks in a graph) which is the exact same general shape of every other game out there.
If you're unfamiliar with this nigh-universal trend in gaming, a simple way to understand it is to consider how many 15+ year old games you're still playing just as avidly as you did when they launched. Almost nobody plays that long. Now how many 10+ year old games are you playing? Still almost nobody, but more than before. 5+ year old games? More players. 2+ year old games? More players. 1+ year old games? Quite a few more. 1 month old games? LOTS!
And if you graph that out in chronological order, you end up with exactly the playerbase decline I'm talking about.
Obviously if you're a 15+ year old game with only 0.01% of your playerbase remaining, that basically amounts to 0.01% of your revenue and this is why population decay is relevant to how much profit a game sustains. Relative population decay isn't really going to change by being F2P. Absolute population decay is though (because a F2P game will attract a much larger playerbase because it's free to play, which means when a game bleeds x% of its players every month the actual number of players will be higher.) That higher population and the higher max pay ceiling are the two reasons F2P makes more money -- with any given game design.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A man who fears nothing is a man who loves nothing; and if you love nothing, what joy is there in your life?
Almost every one of them are creating new MMORPGs. Sadly though, most of those games have to rely on crowdfunding or small investments (Crowfall, Pantheon: ROTF, Shroud of the Avatar, Camelot Unchained), because the money behind the industry do not invest in any game that isn't emulating WoW or a potential "WoW-killer."
While I don't know that these indie games on the horizon will bring in a golden age, I think there is at least hope that we may see a resurgence where the genre brings back the old players as well as many new into a different MMORPG experience.
It is not the visions of wow .. it is the vision of Blizz. Aside from HoTS (which is not a bad game), every single game they made is successful.
May be the problem is that mmorpgs have run their course, and now it is time for something new. May be Overwatch will do to online shooter (note that it is not a FPS) what WoW does not mmorpgs.
And reality is a lot of F2P games do treat their content as a demo with premium subscription features. It becomes a harder distinction with paid expansion content.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
When anything go on sell it'll spike in profit. I suppose you don't even have any idea how much money those games you listed are making now. Except maybe SWTOR.
And unless you are a market researcher, I would say I believe people working in the business more. So when you say Wow and FFIV would be better as f2p games, I dont' buy that. They might be consider it, but at least now isn't the right time.
Because really, almost all the games you listed started out as subscription. They believe they should start out selling the box, and get a few month of subscriber before they change the plan.
I have to agree @sludgebeard
Sure WoW did bring a log of people into the genre, and all the bad copies weren't Blizzards fault.
But now WoW is doing nothing for the gaming industry. It isn't providing anything new and refreshing. And because it does still provide an acceptable gaming experience with lots of other players, what every MMO needs, it means that any new game doesn't get much of a chance because it's so easy to return to WoW.
A lot of new games are coming out which much more than WoW had at its release, but they never get off the ground because it's hard to compete with 10+ years of content while under pressure from ignorant investors and publishers. WoW is still over all a monopoly, which isn't good for business. Blizzard doesn't need to up it's game (they will go through the motions to please their investors), and to crush any possible competition all they have to do is release an expansion around the same time a promising new game is released.
Obviously it isn't solely WoW's fault. Since it came out all the copies try to take the crown without bothering to put the investment in to make a worthy competitor. If WoW were to finally ride into the sunset though, a portion of it’s current population would look for other similar games, and that influx of money could make those other games better, and in a few years they game could really develop into an impressive title.
A lot of coulds and possiblys, but that’s better than the outlook we have now.
Esc Realities - A project to create the next generation MMORPG
Like a person coming from Asheron's Call to WoW could be of the opinion that the trade-off Blizzard made between the combat mechanics and the other systems wasn't worth it, and that not having things like projectile modeling, body part hit zones, etc is a step down.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
But that doesn't mean any of those were either a good or bad ideas. Just locally popular ones, niche fans.
If fan dollars are the only objective way to measure success, those ideas got decimated and then dumped.
But clearly objective criteria aren't all that matters at the level of the individual fan.
"What I learned to love first and most," tends to be the most common subjective criteria.
Conjecture beyond that is pretty much just speculative commentary. Popular vote went to the product that had the best mix of opportunity, presence, marketing, and general design. Whether other systems were good or bad isn't even quantifiable when the thing you compare it to is such an anomaly.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Based on what I have been seeing in the past couple years here, I believe the F2P business model in the West is going to see a decline over the next few years. Just like what happened with the Sub model. I am seeing an increase in player awareness of the impact RMT has on the quality of their experience and how game development shifts from quality content to generating revenue. And I think a lot of games are getting fed up. Look at the thread that got posted today about Asta.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
Stop thinking wow is the centre of gaming and you might enjoy mmo's more
Doesn't change the fact that the long-term value is worth it: remember DDO and LOTRO are from the same company, so Turbine had over a year of DDO being F2P to learn the long-term value, and then still chose to switch LOTRO. Personally I'd guess that in the long-run these games make 20-75% more (varying by game) with F2P over the long run. Much lower than 200%, but obviously an absolute no-brainer decision.
The evidence I've presented isn't a perfect picture. It doesn't cover ongoing revenue. (Though we know population decays in all games, and population will be much lower in a P2P game, and gamers get at least SOME value out of being in a well-populated game (otherwise they wouldn't periodically ask if x game is dead). So F2P has the slight advantage insofar as a high game population has value -- I think it probably doesn't have a lot of value, but is certainly a non-zero positive value.)
Meanwhile the evidence of P2P's superiority is non-existent. It literally hasn't surfaced in the thread so far.
Given one side has rather good evidence supporting its position and the other side has no evidence, it seems a bit of a doomed proposition to argue the other side, yeah? At least unless you can find evidence (and again, I welcome evidence. I'm not going for Confirmation Bias here, I want to know the actual truth of the matter.)
I'm not a market researcher.
...but I am a professional game designer who's worked on F2P games the last ~6 years (~16 years total industry experience). I work alongside Product Managers who know this stuff inside and out, make decisions based on evidence, and actively share their knowledge.
Before the defensive "appeal to authority" deflection, keep in mind the core of my argument was led by evidence. (Granted I often echo this frustration that people are way too quick to reject the ideas of experts nowadays.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The massive surge in private servers is at least partially responsible for the sub drops. Which is why it amazes me they do n't go after them.
Hogwarts Online... or what ever it would be called...
I think you are trying to persuade F2P is the way to go. I didn't even say anything about that.
All I'm saying is the market is usually right.
There are still subscription games out there. There are new games coming out that going to be subscription games. In fact, all the games you listed was subscription games. Are you telling me all of them are wrong?
Most likely non of them are wrong. The market is usually right.
You'll probably keep telling me with evidence F2P is better since they all switched. I'll probably response, the market is usually right. So they make the decision to switch.
Objectivity only states what can be known to be accurate.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Axe is very distinctly opinionated towards telling everyone F2P is the right thing to do.
It's not a rational discussion with him and he'll bring it up regardless of if it relates to the conversation.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin