Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

F2P is making more than TWICE as much money as P2P in the US

124678

Comments

  • MibletMiblet Member Posts: 333

    Why are people now using the data (US only) whilst trying to use eastern markets and games to back it up (given they use a massively differing payment model and internet habits)?

    I have seen Superdatas information on the F2P market, half of what is inferred or said here in this thread is nowhere to be found in their data.  In fact Superdata included freemium titles in their finding as F2P models while all Freemium models carry subscriptions, as well as some games many don't consider MMOs.

    Superdata showed was that there was more profit coming from the F2P market than the P2P market (which should suprise nobody, given the volume of games).  It did not show profitability per title or mention the number of titles in either model.

    F2P isn't going anywhere, it's a successful model and it has it's target audience.

    P2P isn't going anywhere, it's a successful model and it has it's target audience.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Shaigh
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Razeekster
    Originally posted by kadepsyson

    Neat thing about Free to Play games numbers - since people aren't subscribed, as soon as they register for the game they are counted as F2P players forever.

     

    Also, the numbers seem really far off from what I'd expect.  For example, if $86 million is the total revenue for subscriptions, that means at $15 monthly fees there are only 5 million subscribed players in the USA paying subs for MMOs.  Doesn't that seem extremely low?

     

    I'm betting games that call themselves free to play but offer subscription levels, count subscribers as F2P players for the purpose of this obviously misleading and off the mark report.

     

    edit: clarity

    I think you vastly overestimate how many people in the USA even play MMOs. I live in Maine and I know very few people that play MMOs. When I was in middle school Runescape was sort of popular but after that most everyone moved on once they hit high school and formed other hobbies where MMOs didn't fit into their lives. I do know though that a lot of these people play console games (me and a couple friends are always going over our Elder Scroll adeventures haha).

     

    I think though a lot of people on here forget that not as many people play MMOs as they seem to think.

    There are 45M+ MMO players in the US.

    http://www.superdataresearch.com/us-free-to-play-does-it-pay-to-switch/

    That's because they count games like LoL, Diablo 3 and war of tanks as MMO's.

    I doubt they count D3, but they certainly do count LoL and WoT. However, these games are close enough to MMOs for me. You can match with lots of people for pvp (and pve in D3). Essentially what a lot of people do in MMO anyway.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Miblet

    Superdata showed was that there was more profit coming from the F2P market than the P2P market (which should suprise nobody, given the volume of games).  It did not show profitability per title or mention the number of titles in either model.

    F2P isn't going anywhere, it's a successful model and it has it's target audience.

    P2P isn't going anywhere, it's a successful model and it has it's target audience.

     

    The fact that more F2P titles are made than P2P tell you something about market trend.

    F2P is growing in terms of players.

    P2P is shrinking in terms of players.

    I don't think p2p is going away just because of WOW, but if the trend continues, it will be further marginalized. P2P was much bigger than F2P a few years ago .. now it is less than 1/2. That should tell you something.

  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    Originally posted by taus01
    Originally posted by Aelious
    taus01

    I know it's hard not to be biased but the difference from east to west in regards to MMOs transcends personal taste and is more one of social feasibility. One who seems so in touch with eastern MMOs should know the type of game favored, why it is and why it would be easy to transition to F2P.

    As far as AAA MMOs coming from the east now? Where are they? None of them are here yet. Even if they were, an updated graphics engine doesn't constitute a good MMO. Of those games listed Black Desert and AA do seem like good games, BD more of an innovation than the rest. The others seem like the same ole personally.

    I am not discussing the quality or how good these games are. Those vary on personal taste way too much to be a base for a mature discussion.

    What i said was that the eastern market is very healthy and is expanding into western territory not only by buying up IP and development studios but also by producing astounding quality. They finance these AAA quality mmorpgs with their short lived mediocre F2P games (although some of them look quite impressive).

    The western market has to learn that creating mmorpg games with AAA budgets but failing on release and then going F2P is not going to work forever. This can not go on for very much longer.

    Personally i think that the market is already lost to eastern mmorpgs once these next generation games hit the western market. 2-3 years from now most mmorpg developers will be bankrupt or bought by eastern publishers unless they get their act together.

     

    I agree that the current western F2P conversions will not work forever and it's already slowed, you'll notice there aren't a handful of new AAA titles released anymore.  In fact many of the titles currently in development are different than the "status quo".  The western market is going through phases just like the eastern market.  It's balancing itself and will continue to do so especially since all research, however convoluted it may be, indicates a continually growing player population.  The eastern and western markets are seperate and not very comparable.  Different player population, different social connection and different history all together.  The eastern market built their F2P system off cheaper, more disposable titles so they flourished from the start rather than dropping first.  It also helps that there was and is a much larger player base.

     

    You did indeed discuss the quality of games:

     

    "produce and release AAA quality mmorpgs that not only rival but outshine any western mmorpgs on the market."

     

    This may have just been a slip on your part that you didn't mean but there it is.  On that point you'd have to point out just what "outshine" means, unless you mean graphics.  Again, generally speaking there is a different preference between east and west so I agree that discussing "better" is not conducive to a mature dicussion.

     

    Edit: The "buying up" of failed western MMOs of course is just Neverwinter, right? We'll see just how good or bad the decision was by Atari to sell it, we wont know for a while.  It is afterall following the same "WoW formula" image

  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Miblet

    Superdata showed was that there was more profit coming from the F2P market than the P2P market (which should suprise nobody, given the volume of games).  It did not show profitability per title or mention the number of titles in either model.

    F2P isn't going anywhere, it's a successful model and it has it's target audience.

    P2P isn't going anywhere, it's a successful model and it has it's target audience.

     

    The fact that more F2P titles are made than P2P tell you something about market trend.

    F2P is growing in terms of players.

    P2P is shrinking in terms of players.

    I don't think p2p is going away just because of WOW, but if the trend continues, it will be further marginalized. P2P was much bigger than F2P a few years ago .. now it is less than 1/2. That should tell you something.

     

    Or the sub model almost every F2P game has and is not seperated when F2P vs. P2P revenue is discussed.  Hardly any AAA MMO is strictly F2P.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Aelious

    Or the sub model almost every F2P game has and is not seperated when F2P vs. P2P revenue is discussed.  Hardly any AAA MMO is strictly F2P.

    That is just semantics. I am more than happy if they change the term to "F2P with p2p option", and "P2P only".

    The point is that the market for P2P only game is taken over by games with a F2P option.

     

  • baphametbaphamet Member RarePosts: 3,311


    Originally posted by Robokapp
    Originally posted by taus01   It's common knowledge that the eastern market has successfully made the transition to F2P more than 5 years ago and has since then grown to a point where they now not only buy up failing western products but also produce and release AAA quality mmorpgs that not only rival but outshine any western mmorpgs on the market. The western market is still trying to re-create the magic WoW formula failing miserably year after year and losing money in the process Western gaming companies will fail within the next 2-3 years if they do not adapt to the changed market.
    so the western market needs more internet cafe's. gotcha.

    with cheesy anime style cartoon graphics with characters that look like 12 year old girls with gigantic boobs running around.

    no thanks, they can keep their mmo's as far as i am concerned.

  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Aelious

    Or the sub model almost every F2P game has and is not seperated when F2P vs. P2P revenue is discussed.  Hardly any AAA MMO is strictly F2P.

    That is just semantics. I am more than happy if they change the term to "F2P with p2p option", and "P2P only".

    The point is that the market for P2P only game is taken over by games with a F2P option.

     

    If it's just semantics then it would be great if people and studies actualy said what they meant.  It's misleading.

  • baphametbaphamet Member RarePosts: 3,311

    unless a F2P model is actually F2P without restrictions, i will never like that model, i don't care how much money it makes.

    i would rather give the company my money to play the full version of the game than unlock certain features but still not getting to enjoy the whole game.

    B2P like what GW2 does is fine as long as its profitable for them and they can keep coming out with new content but i would say a sub based model would allow them much more resources to come out with newer content, even if it did have a F2P option with restrictions.

    the sub option must always be there or there must not be any restrictions at all, in order for me to play it.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    Originally posted by baphamet

    unless a F2P model is actually F2P without restrictions, i will never like that model, i don't care how much money it makes.

    i would rather give the company my money to play the full version of the game than unlock certain features but still not getting to enjoy the whole game.

    B2P like what GW2 does is fine as long as its profitable for them and they can keep coming out with new content but i would say a sub based model would allow them much more resources to come out with newer content, even if it did have a F2P option with restrictions.

    the sub option must always be there or there must not be any restrictions at all, in order for me to play it.

     So a f2p game with content restrictions that you must buy to continue and a p2p game with an expansion that you must buy to continue. 

    Having a sub in this case did not remove the restriction.

    Whats the difference between the two?

    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • MibletMiblet Member Posts: 333
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Miblet

    Superdata showed was that there was more profit coming from the F2P market than the P2P market (which should suprise nobody, given the volume of games).  It did not show profitability per title or mention the number of titles in either model.

    F2P isn't going anywhere, it's a successful model and it has it's target audience.

    P2P isn't going anywhere, it's a successful model and it has it's target audience.

     

    The fact that more F2P titles are made than P2P tell you something about market trend.

    F2P is growing in terms of players.

    P2P is shrinking in terms of players.

    I don't think p2p is going away just because of WOW, but if the trend continues, it will be further marginalized. P2P was much bigger than F2P a few years ago .. now it is less than 1/2. That should tell you something.

    Saying that the F2P market was lagging behind a few years ago would be somewhat true (the size of which is debatable).  The last few years have seen several P2P games switch to include F2P options which is where the large jump has come about.  Superdata, as I have said, includes such titles as F2P, even though all of them in some form have a subscription style system in place.  They are not however represented in the subscription system.  This tells me the data may have been presented in a bias fashion, simply a lack of understanding or correct context given in their reports.

    As I have said Pure P2P games may have seen a decline because their development cycles are usually considerably longer, several for example will be released during this year, which again will impact such figures greatly, yet are being ignored in this arguement as well as the inconsistancies noted above.

    I agree that the F2P market is growing.  It has fewer barriers to entry, less hold on players per title (allowing players to try multiple games) and considerably faster dev times (and lower outlay).  However to write off the P2P market because it is not as profitable overall is silly, It is still an insaely profitable market, and will continue to be for the forseeable future.

    I don't see why anyone has to champion either side, as gamers the more choices the better for us, yet people want to see options removed because they disagree with them?

  • ArclanArclan Member UncommonPosts: 1,550


    Originally posted by Shaigh


    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    There are 45M+ MMO players in the US.

    That's because they count games like LoL, Diablo 3 and war of tanks as MMO's.


    This 45M figure was debated on another thread. If I played six MMOs, I would count as six people in that 45M.



    Originally posted by Phry
    What impressed me the most about Black Desert is that the cities and animations feel real. Noticed how there are no bars or names or icons anywhere on the characters or NPCs? The houses are full of people, NPC walk around the town etc.

    Sounds very cool.


    Originally posted by Miblet
    Why are people now using the data (US only) whilst trying to use eastern markets and games to back it up (given they use a massively differing payment model and internet habits)?I have seen Superdatas information on the F2P market, half of what is inferred or said here in this thread is nowhere to be found in their data. In fact Superdata included freemium titles in their finding as F2P models while all Freemium models carry subscriptions, as well as some games many don't consider MMOs.Superdata showed was that there was more profit coming from the F2P market than the P2P market (which should suprise nobody, given the volume of games). It did not show profitability per title or mention the number of titles in either model.F2P isn't going anywhere, it's a successful model and it has it's target audience.P2P isn't going anywhere, it's a successful model and it has it's target audience.


    F I N A L L Y, someone purchased and read the superdata information which, after some consideration, seems intentionally misleading.


    Originally posted by Miblet
    Saying that the F2P market was lagging behind a few years ago would be somewhat true (the size of which is debatable). The last few years have seen several P2P games switch to include F2P options which is where the large jump has come about. Superdata, as I have said, includes such titles as F2P, even though all of them in some form have a subscription style system in place. They are not however represented in the subscription system. This tells me the data may have been presented in a bias fashion, simply a lack of understanding or correct context given in their reports.As I have said Pure P2P games may have seen a decline because their development cycles are usually considerably longer, several for example will be released during this year, which again will impact such figures greatly, yet are being ignored in this arguement as well as the inconsistancies noted above.I agree that the F2P market is growing. It has fewer barriers to entry, less hold on players per title (allowing players to try multiple games) and considerably faster dev times (and lower outlay). However to write off the P2P market because it is not as profitable overall is silly, It is still an insaely profitable market, and will continue to be for the forseeable future.I don't see why anyone has to champion either side, as gamers the more choices the better for us, yet people want to see options removed because they disagree with them?

    Another excellent post. But as "F2P" is hated by most and adored by a few on these forums, it is only natural that the topic be debated frequently.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Miblet
     

    Saying that the F2P market was lagging behind a few years ago would be somewhat true (the size of which is debatable). 

    I don't see why anyone has to champion either side, as gamers the more choices the better for us, yet people want to see options removed because they disagree with them?

    Here is the actual numbers:

    http://www.newzoo.com/trend-reports/mmo-trend-report/

    "Free-to-play MMO games take 47% of all money spent on MMO games in the US, up from 39% in 2010"

    This report is for 2011 numbers. And now the newest number is F2P making more than 2 to 1 than p2p (so >66%). i would say going from a 39% revenue share to more than 66%, in 3 years 2010-2013, is a huge jump.

    And yes, more option is good. I have no problem if every MMO in the world has a F2P and a sub option.

     

  • XthosXthos Member UncommonPosts: 2,739

    Seems very diluted with 'browser based mmos'....Farmville/Mafia Wars are mmos?  Not buying it.

     

  • baphametbaphamet Member RarePosts: 3,311


    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by baphamet unless a F2P model is actually F2P without restrictions, i will never like that model, i don't care how much money it makes. i would rather give the company my money to play the full version of the game than unlock certain features but still not getting to enjoy the whole game. B2P like what GW2 does is fine as long as its profitable for them and they can keep coming out with new content but i would say a sub based model would allow them much more resources to come out with newer content, even if it did have a F2P option with restrictions. the sub option must always be there or there must not be any restrictions at all, in order for me to play it.
     So a f2p game with content restrictions that you must buy to continue and a p2p game with an expansion that you must buy to continue. 

    Having a sub in this case did not remove the restriction.

    Whats the difference between the two?


    you are talking about expansions, i am talking about having to unlock things that's already in the game you are playing.

    you can pay less money to unlock a few things but you will still have a gimped version of the game.

    if you pay to unlock everything, you may as well pay a sub because it will likely be cheaper.

    i just don't see the logic in only wanting to play F2P games when they have restrictions, unless you cannot afford it or just want to try the game to see if you like it.

    but to each their own.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by baphamet

    you are talking about expansions, i am talking about having to unlock things that's already in the game you are playing.

    What is the difference? You don't pay, you don't get part of the game. Whether the paid part is already there, or exist on another DVD (or a digital download), makes no difference.

    Heck, many expansion has trial (like those in WOW). If you do the trial, you would already in your game directory. So you are paying to unlock it ... there is zero difference.

  • MibletMiblet Member Posts: 333
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Miblet
     

    Saying that the F2P market was lagging behind a few years ago would be somewhat true (the size of which is debatable). 

    I don't see why anyone has to champion either side, as gamers the more choices the better for us, yet people want to see options removed because they disagree with them?

    Here is the actual numbers:

    http://www.newzoo.com/trend-reports/mmo-trend-report/

    "Free-to-play MMO games take 47% of all money spent on MMO games in the US, up from 39% in 2010"

    This report is for 2011 numbers. And now the newest number is F2P making more than 2 to 1 than p2p (so >66%). i would say going from a 39% revenue share to more than 66%, in 3 years 2010-2013, is a huge jump.

    And yes, more option is good. I have no problem if every MMO in the world has a F2P and a sub option.

     

    Even from those figures (and ignoring the previoulsy mentioned issues in Superdata's delivery of the data) a 33% market share in a market as large as the MMO market is far from an indication of impending doom for the P2P model.  Moreso when again the P2P model increased it's market size (granted not to the size of the F2P market).

    As for you saying you would be happy if every game had both, would that suggest you would be unhappy with some P2P, some F2P and some combination games?

     

  • fivorothfivoroth Member UncommonPosts: 3,916
    No suprises there. There are only a handful P2P MMOs out there and a billion F2P asian grinders :D

    Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.

  • MindTriggerMindTrigger Member Posts: 2,596
    Originally posted by Tjed
    Dude, do you work for EA or PW or something?  Serious question, as I have never seen a bigger white knight for micro transaction, cash shops.  Never on any website for any game or any genre of game.... ever.  Do you?

    The fact is, a year ago these forums and other forums all over the internet were absolutely FULL of people saying "I'm not paying a subscription fee for games" and making all kinds of other anti-subscription rants.

    Those of us with half a brain already knew that the future of online entertainment was going to be in micro transactions, and we knew they would make more money too if they found smart ways to monetize.  It's inevitable, and the cat is out of the bag now.  Those of you who don't like cash shops better start getting over it, especially if you plan to play mainstream games.

    The point is, people didn't want the sub fee because it was "too expensive", so now they have cash shops so players willing to spend cash can support the cheapskates who couldn't afford a sub fee.  Do you expect these games to be created over 3-5 years and then handed to you for free?

     

    A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.

  • TjedTjed Member Posts: 162
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    Originally posted by Tjed
    Dude, do you work for EA or PW or something?  Serious question, as I have never seen a bigger white knight for micro transaction, cash shops.  Never on any website for any game or any genre of game.... ever.  Do you?

    The fact is, a year ago these forums and other forums all over the internet were absolutely FULL of people saying "I'm not paying a subscription fee for games" and making all kinds of other anti-subscription rants.

    Those of us with half a brain already knew that the future of online entertainment was going to be in micro transactions, and we knew they would make more money too if they found smart ways to monetize.  It's inevitable, and the cat is out of the bag now.  Those of you who don't like cash shops better start getting over it, especially if you plan to play mainstream games.

    The point is, people didn't want the sub fee because it was "too expensive", so now they have cash shops so players willing to spend cash can support the cheapskates who couldn't afford a sub fee.  Do you expect these games to be created over 3-5 years and then handed to you for free?

     

    How, exactly, is prefering a $15 a month subscription fee, expecting these games to be created over 3-5 years and handed to me for free?

    Edit:  I'm also cool with $60 up front and $30 or so for an expansion.

  • WaidenWaiden Member UncommonPosts: 500

    there are also more than twice as much freeloaders and free to play mmorpgs than true mmorpg players and p2p mmorpgs .. So ... yea

     

  • StonesDKStonesDK Member UncommonPosts: 1,805
    Originally posted by Dogblaster

    there are also more than twice as much freeloaders and free to play mmorpgs than true mmorpg players and p2p mmorpgs .. So ... yea

     

    How are you a freeloader in a free game? better yet explain how there can be twice as much as in a p2p game if a p2p has none? What's the double of none

  • MibletMiblet Member Posts: 333
    Originally posted by StonesDK
    Originally posted by Dogblaster

    there are also more than twice as much freeloaders and free to play mmorpgs than true mmorpg players and p2p mmorpgs .. So ... yea

     

    How are you a freeloader in a free game? better yet explain how there can be twice as much as in a p2p game if a p2p has none? What's the double of none

    I'm assuming he meant double the number of P2P players.

    Technically while the term freeloading is a bit harsh, those who play wihout spending are being subsidised by those who do (though the ratio is higher than 2:1 for non paying:paying).  There is nothing free in this world, and whenever someone says something is free there is a catch.  F2P is no different, the servers the games run off cost money, staff costs money etc if nobody at all paid the games would simply close.

  • StonesDKStonesDK Member UncommonPosts: 1,805
    Originally posted by Miblet
    Originally posted by StonesDK
    Originally posted by Dogblaster

    there are also more than twice as much freeloaders and free to play mmorpgs than true mmorpg players and p2p mmorpgs .. So ... yea

     

    How are you a freeloader in a free game? better yet explain how there can be twice as much as in a p2p game if a p2p has none? What's the double of none

    I'm assuming he meant double the number of P2P players.

    Technically while the term freeloading is a bit harsh, those who play wihout spending are being subsidised by those who do (though the ratio is higher than 2:1 for non paying:paying).  There is nothing free in this world, and whenever someone says something is free there is a catch.  F2P is no different, the servers the games run off cost money, staff costs money etc if nobody at all paid the games would simply close.

    Free players are just as valuable because an empty game won't attract paying gamers either but you are right, I read his post wrong. As for nothing being free, plenty of games are free. You may not get access to everything but people do play the free portion forever and being content with doing so. It's more of a personal view than a universal truth

  • plutosamsplutosams Member UncommonPosts: 50

    This is a very large misread of the data.  The correct title would, "F2P Market makes more than the P2P Market".  You also should be very wary of any data that company presents because their methodology section leaves much to be desired.  All you can actually say with the data presented is that P2P lost net subscribers and F2P gained net subscribing, additionally the F2P MARKET saw a net increase in revenue while the P2P market saw a net decrease.  When looked at this from a common sense perspective it doesn't take long to realize these numbers are scewed.  The sheer amount of F2P titles far outweighs the amount of P2P titles...likely meaning that revenue per game on P2P far EXCEEDS net revenue per game of F2P.

    Here is a bit of rude math.  They list 350 titles included in their data of which MMOs only account for 1 of 4 types included.   So since we have no idea what the real number of MMOs is let's just use the list that MMORPG maintains.  Of the MMOs listed with listed fee schedules and that have been released we are left with 513 titles; 46 of which list a subscription fee.  In this sample alone P2P only account for 9% of the total MMOs.  If we apply this to the number provided in the link it means 46 titles earned $86 million or $1.9 million per game (obviously certain games make much more than that).  F2P made $195 million; split among the remaining 467 games comes to $418k per game, less than 25% of the per game amount of P2P.  Mind you this is rough math, but gives a general idea of what is happening with the data.  Wording it to sound like F2P "games" make more money is erroneous.  The F2P market certainly makes more, but games do not.   Additionally, the data above includes many games that are barely making if at all, so the real number of active mmos is much smaller than the number I used here. 

    What one would very likely find in a full analysis of games is that a small handful of F2P games make enough money to stay in competition with the P2P heavy weights, but very few.  

Sign In or Register to comment.