Sub game make more money at release. F2P games make more money long term. So games release as P2P, then go F2P to maximize the money made.
I suppose it's possible for a F2P game to make a bunch of money at release too, but we haven't really had a good example of it.
Your example of it is Guild Wars 2, but to acknowledge that would cause several heads around here to explode.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Eredar Twins in Sunwell was a fight that the world first came with a comp of 2 tanks 11 healers 12 dps. The reason bosses have enrage timers is so you don't bring all tanks and healers and "outlive" them. enrage timers are necesary unfortunatelly.
That's not a necessity, it's one of the many band-aids needed to build content around the trinity. Worse, it's designed not only to counter such a scenario but to force the necessity of the trinity when there is no other logical reason for its presence.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Its mostly because of how our brains work. A person is more likely to spend 15 over the course of a month than sign off on paying 15 every month. Actually, the numbers show we are more likely to spend WAY more in impulse sales than in planned sales, or debt. There is a really good series of posts from folks in the industry about this, lemme link one of the last ones I read. Its not directly about MMO games...but the design structures can be paralleled.
I'm sure plenty of you have read some of his stuff, so for many this is gonna be old news. But it does have bearing in this topic. The deal is that there isn't a lot of room for market overlap with pay to play. We, on average, aren't likely to keep several MMO's subscribed because we have time to think about the money lost each month and apply that to others ways it could be spent. We ARE likely to have several F2P games we toy around with, and if these games utilize those coercive tactics we (particularly those in the 18-25 demographic) are incredibly likely to spend as much, or more than, the aforementioned 15$. We might even play 3-5 different F2P games that, in turn, draw far more money out of us than we'd spend otherwise. I wouldn't, but I'm not the target demographic either (I am 30, with wife and kids and bills). I have a friend that lives as a testament to this, the XBLA game, Happy Wars, is a F2P model. Its fun, I played it. I even spent 10$ in its shop (after I had vested enough fun playtime to warrant it, thats my rule...I'll pay what I feel I have already earned in gametime) HE spent over 200$. In a monthly set up...he just paid for 19 other people that month if the sub fee had been 10$.
If 1000 people like him play...its enough to cover 20,000 players.
Thats 1/20 of your playerbase paying for the rest. 50,000/1 million. Assuming you held even that small fraction, at a million players you've made 10 million. That assumes that only your hard spenders pay. Many more will pay 1$ or 2$ that month if you monetize well. A very select few will spend MORE. Simply because of the tactics mentioned in that blog.
Thank you. I know it's profitable. I know it's coming.
The question is why are you guys okay with it.
So will the tiers/rankings of players one day be divided by how much money they spent?
The question initially present was based around whether or not sub games are more profitable. The answer is, they are...in times of low market density. With a few thousand MMO's....not so much. Too much player division, and far too many casual gamers among them. The F2P strategy is nearly tailor suited to that demographic. Those games are actually not expressly more profitable, they just carry greater certainty OF profit (rather than what another poster here suggested). A P2P MMO is competing against everything else that takes up your time. In our minds, thats how we justify it...we pay for only as much as we feel we have time to play. Its not something associated with F2P games, even though we spend more its mostly on impulse purchases and done before the brain (in younger players) has time to really process the effects of the transaction against their play time in game.
In both cases these games are effectively anti-consumer in design. One seeks to draw the game out arbitrarily to keep people paying. The other seeks to arbitrarily spike difficulty at peak moments to keep you paying for ways around it. Some are even more vile, flagging the user as a predisposed buyer and raising the gate even higher to bleed them. Neither style of game is actually ABOUT what is fun. Its about doling fun out and then gating you in order to draw money out of you. They are ALL terrible. GW2 actually has the best design, the game is box sale only so it HAS to win on its own merits to encourage future xpack sales.
Originally posted by lizardbones Sub game make more money at release. F2P games make more money long term. So games release as P2P, then go F2P to maximize the money made. I suppose it's possible for a F2P game to make a bunch of money at release too, but we haven't really had a good example of it.
Your example of it is Guild Wars 2, but to acknowledge that would cause several heads around here to explode.
GW2 isn't a F2P game. It's B2P, which is different. It has the advantage of collecting a lot of the initial sales, with the longevity of F2P games. It's really more like the P2P games that go F2P than it is like a F2P game.
I've personally had the best experience with B2P games overall and had the most satisfaction from those games. It is the model that has the most similarity with all of the non MMORPG that I've purchased too, which makes it a comfortable purchase. But we're not talking about the merits of B2P. :-(
If EQN or ESO released as a F2P game, then we'd have our example. I think even WildStar releasing as a F2P game and being successful would be good enough. WildStar isn't necessarily the AAA game that people are looking at, but I think it would be big enough to count.
**
I think ArcheAge would be a fine example too, if it were successful and released as F2P.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
its quite simple really. just because a dev/pub decides to charge $15 a month doesn't mean the game is actually worth $15 a month. the ones that are make plenty of money.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity. I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
Eredar Twins in Sunwell was a fight that the world first came with a comp of 2 tanks 11 healers 12 dps. The reason bosses have enrage timers is so you don't bring all tanks and healers and "outlive" them. enrage timers are necesary unfortunatelly.
That's not a necessity, it's one of the many band-aids needed to build content around the trinity. Worse, it's designed not only to counter such a scenario but to force the necessity of the trinity when there is no other logical reason for its presence.
You mean other than some people just like a game being built based on it.
iv skipped reading a lot of the post on this one cause I can safely assume that the thread as degenerated into the normal argument for and aginst F2P
now that aside im sure most who have read my post ( if anyone bothers to :P ) know im not for F2P. so when I say that P2P dose I fact not make more profit on average for companies the F2P I would hope people would not think me being some silly twit.
the point in fact is the main reason companies have been changing over to F2P has not been for the good of gamers it is simply cause it makes them more money, the reason why people like me prefer P2P over F2P is several, which im not going to go into currently.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
I'm not against P2P and I'm not against F2P I like all models(to some extent).
But I hear it tossed around a lot, that P2P games make more money and get more updates and are hence better. If this is true, why are almost all the P2P games going F2P? Do they just hate money?
Even Rift, which was every P2P die hard's anthem. "Look at Rift! That game pumps out so much content because it is P2P!" well...they went F2P. Were they tired of making all that money?
Other than WoW, Eve is one of the only hold outs with a sub. But even that game allows players to basically buy in game currency through the plex system. (buy tons of plex and sell it all in game) so it's not a pure P2P game with everyone equal regardless of money spent.
I am just curious what the reasoning here is. The P2P games are better, because they make more money, yet they all have to go F2P. Something feels off...
Unless someone has intimate details of the revenue streams of a specific title, regardless of the business model, don't trust what they say.
Businesses are in business to make money, and if one company feels that it can generate better, more sustainable revenues with business model A rather than B, C, D, E or whatever, they will try that method. If the officers choose badly, they will be out of work, and they know that. That is the free-market system at work.
Bottom line: the revenue model is unrelated to the game's quality.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Originally posted by lizardbones Sub game make more money at release. F2P games make more money long term. So games release as P2P, then go F2P to maximize the money made. I suppose it's possible for a F2P game to make a bunch of money at release too, but we haven't really had a good example of it.
Your example of it is Guild Wars 2, but to acknowledge that would cause several heads around here to explode.
GW2 isn't a F2P game. It's B2P, which is different. It has the advantage of collecting a lot of the initial sales, with the longevity of F2P games. It's really more like the P2P games that go F2P than it is like a F2P game.
Actually, it is a F2P game in every aspect of its design and monetization, but with a front loaded client fee.
"It's B2P, which is different."
That statement is the greatest gift that MMO gamers ever gave the industry.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Eredar Twins in Sunwell was a fight that the world first came with a comp of 2 tanks 11 healers 12 dps. The reason bosses have enrage timers is so you don't bring all tanks and healers and "outlive" them. enrage timers are necesary unfortunatelly.
That's not a necessity, it's one of the many band-aids needed to build content around the trinity. Worse, it's designed not only to counter such a scenario but to force the necessity of the trinity when there is no other logical reason for its presence.
You mean other than some people just like a game being built based on it.
If you could link me to a single post from any game where a group of players lauded the enrage mechanic, I will willingly concede to your point.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I'm not against P2P and I'm not against F2P I like all models(to some extent).
But I hear it tossed around a lot, that P2P games make more money and get more updates and are hence better. If this is true, why are almost all the P2P games going F2P? Do they just hate money?
Even Rift, which was every P2P die hard's anthem. "Look at Rift! That game pumps out so much content because it is P2P!" well...they went F2P. Were they tired of making all that money?
Other than WoW, Eve is one of the only hold outs with a sub. But even that game allows players to basically buy in game currency through the plex system. (buy tons of plex and sell it all in game) so it's not a pure P2P game with everyone equal regardless of money spent.
I am just curious what the reasoning here is. The P2P games are better, because they make more money, yet they all have to go F2P. Something feels off...
Unless someone has intimate details of the revenue streams of a specific title, regardless of the business model, don't trust what they say.
Businesses are in business to make money, and if one company feels that it can generate better, more sustainable revenues with business model A rather than B, C, D, E or whatever, they will try that method. If the officers choose badly, they will be out of work, and they know that. That is the free-market system at work.
Bottom line: the revenue model is unrelated to the game's quality.
I agree with everything you said exept the last part, I beleave the current module in use dose not incourage a company to improve upon the quality of the game but instead play psychological tricks to get you to spend money in the cash shop.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
F2P is the better business model and has the potential to be A LOT more profitable, but that varies from game to game.
WoW is a sub game WITH a small marketplace and service fees, but just because it hasn't gone F2P doesn't mean it is better or won't make more money... Just stop and use your brain. The game came out at a time when there really wasn't much to choose from, let just say they got a head start of sorts. It built a massive player base which has gotten smaller over the years, but it is still massive. Now tell me, if you invested years of your time, money, ect. into a game would you leave at the first sight or something that may be better? Most would likely say no, but those that don't probably wouldn't realize what they're giving up for a new game because not only are you leaving your character behind, you're also leaving your friends and everyone else you made bonds with over the years... That is, of course, if they're not leaving with you.
I am certain that WoW's player base will dwindle so much eventually that it will either go F2P or shut down completely with the latter being the most unlikely. So why doesn't WoW go F2P? It simply doesn't need to because while the potential IS there to make a lot more money than it already does, the stigma behind the F2P model isn't worth the risk IMO. People will have mixed feelings about the change and might leave because of the bad rap that the F2P model has been given.
EVE on the other hand may be a subbed game, but it does give players a way to continue playing without spending a dime... I might be wrong about this as I don't play it, but it is what I've heard.
So to answer your question... F2P is much better for games that are just starting, especially in the gaming society as it is today. Games simply won't make near as much money with a sub as they could with a F2P model and I stand behind that opinion because I very much doubt that some absolutely spectacular game will come out with a sub and be able to hit WoW's numbers.
Originally posted by Witten Why are you buying into a game made to empty your wallet?
I do not. That is why i play F2P games. So far, i spent exactly zero on them.
one modern philosopher once said that to understand if an idea or action is good or bad, simply imagine everyone in the world doing it at once and the answer will be obvious.
so...let's picture f2p MMOs where everyone spends exactly zero.
-either they live from in-game advertising. not a big deal in sci-fi, problem in fantasy. [p.s. I wish this was tried once. I can see a Grand Theft Auto mmo where real car brands and various bilboards and product placements are integrated. Would driving real-named cars really be immersion-breaking? or driving past a pepsi bilboard?]
-or they don't live period.
Why picture something that is not realty? We already know that there are whales who pay through the roof.
Let's picture many players spend exactly zero, and a few whales pays through the roof .....
hmm .. it looks like a great situation .. for the free players.
Originally posted by Witten Why are you buying into a game made to empty your wallet?
I do not. That is why i play F2P games. So far, i spent exactly zero on them.
one modern philosopher once said that to understand if an idea or action is good or bad, simply imagine everyone in the world doing it at once and the answer will be obvious.
so...let's picture f2p MMOs where everyone spends exactly zero.
-either they live from in-game advertising. not a big deal in sci-fi, problem in fantasy. [p.s. I wish this was tried once. I can see a Grand Theft Auto mmo where real car brands and various bilboards and product placements are integrated. Would driving real-named cars really be immersion-breaking? or driving past a pepsi bilboard?]
-or they don't live period.
Why picture something that is not realty? We already know that there are whales who pay through the roof.
Let's picture many players spend exactly zero, and a few whales pays through the roof .....
hmm .. it looks like a great situation .. for the free players.
Planetside 1 tried the in-game advertising, but it didn't last very long because people would just find a why to block the advertisements.
They don't necessarily make more money but make money and a more consistent rate. For example I'm sure RIFT saw a boost in income the first month of F2P but how long will that boost actually last?
But all these games went free to play as a last resort to knock off some money from the fans.
Do NOT be fooled, F2P doesn't work for AAA type MMO's as these are too costly to make.
What you see is B2P games that were initially launched as subscription based games (and developped) are turning into F2P, but no one would make them anymore in the long run.
tldr: F2P is good for little things, like Facebook games, iPad games, small things.
Real open world MMORP's are too costly to make to support F2P in the long run.
Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by LoktofeitOriginally posted by lizardbones Sub game make more money at release. F2P games make more money long term. So games release as P2P, then go F2P to maximize the money made. I suppose it's possible for a F2P game to make a bunch of money at release too, but we haven't really had a good example of it.
Your example of it is Guild Wars 2, but to acknowledge that would cause several heads around here to explode.GW2 isn't a F2P game. It's B2P, which is different. It has the advantage of collecting a lot of the initial sales, with the longevity of F2P games. It's really more like the P2P games that go F2P than it is like a F2P game.Actually, it is a F2P game in every aspect of its design and monetization, but with a front loaded client fee.
"It's B2P, which is different."
That statement is the greatest gift that MMO gamers ever gave the industry.
You've described how it's different. The front loaded client fee is the difference.
I can play all the way through SWToR without paying a client fee, but if I want to play all the way through GW2, I have to pay the client fee. SWToR is F2P and GW2 is B2P. The monetization of B2P and F2P is different. Since the monetization is different, GW2 is not a proof of F2P being a good model for both initial and long term money gain.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Witten Why are you buying into a game made to empty your wallet?
I do not. That is why i play F2P games. So far, i spent exactly zero on them.
one modern philosopher once said that to understand if an idea or action is good or bad, simply imagine everyone in the world doing it at once and the answer will be obvious.
yeah, I like that. Makes a lot of sense to me and is a pretty good way to frame things. No matter what the subject.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Other than WoW and EvE, all other mmos aren't good enough to warrant a subscription. That is why their subscription models have failed. Now you are getting a 2nd or 3rd rate mmos for f2p which people feel more comfortable playing and paying when they feel like. It sucks playing a crappy mmo that has a sub fee attached to it.
The whole reason so many MMOs went F2P is because they expect to make MORE money than if they were P2P. Not less. Where do you get the idea that sub games always make more money? They don't, except for WoW, and that's been a huge exception for MMOs across the board in profit. MMO companies learned pretty fast that they aren't going to earn the money that WoW is earning, and games such as LOTRO & SWTOR have been discovering that they earn a higher profit via microtransactions by bringing in a lot more people playing for free that are later willing to buy extras for their characters. Subscription games were failing miserably and being cancelled or shutdown left and right because they didn't earn enough to sustain them, so something needed to change and LOTRO was one of the first to prove a new method worked.
FTP/BTP can and has supported AAA titles. Where is this idea ftp doesn't make money? ftp makes more money than subs, unless you have a huge sub base. In this itunes world, people are willing to spent a bit here and there even though it might add up to more than 15 a month.
You know once upon a time people bought albums and cds. You can cry about the long gone days, but it doesn't change the reality of how things work now.
Originally posted by WittenWhy are you buying into a game made to empty your wallet?
I do not. That is why i play F2P games. So far, i spent exactly zero on them.
one modern philosopher once said that to understand if an idea or action is good or bad, simply imagine everyone in the world doing it at once and the answer will be obvious.
yeah, I like that. Makes a lot of sense to me and is a pretty good way to frame things. No matter what the subject.
If everyone in the world ate potatoes all at once, we'd run out of potatoes the first day and we wouldn't have any french fries until the next crop of potatoes came in.
**
The point is that almost nothing is good if everyone does it, and almost anything can be good in small measures, especially if applied correctly.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
FTP/BTP can and has supported AAA titles. Where is this idea ftp doesn't make money? ftp makes more money than subs, unless you have a huge sub base. In this itunes world, people are willing to spent a bit here and there even though it might add up to more than 15 a month.
You know once upon a time people bought albums and cds. You can cry about the long gone days, but it doesn't change the reality of how things work now.
The AAA titles I have played that have gone the ftp route tend to keep the sub option around and I think a majority of people who enjoy the game still sub. Subbing usually makes gameplay easier and more fun, so many do it. Games that retain the sub option do very well this way. Assuming since the game is ftp that most people are not subbing is a bad assumption. Free players generally don't stick around long so you find them mostly at the lower levels.
Comments
Your example of it is Guild Wars 2, but to acknowledge that would cause several heads around here to explode.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
That's not a necessity, it's one of the many band-aids needed to build content around the trinity. Worse, it's designed not only to counter such a scenario but to force the necessity of the trinity when there is no other logical reason for its presence.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The question initially present was based around whether or not sub games are more profitable. The answer is, they are...in times of low market density. With a few thousand MMO's....not so much. Too much player division, and far too many casual gamers among them. The F2P strategy is nearly tailor suited to that demographic. Those games are actually not expressly more profitable, they just carry greater certainty OF profit (rather than what another poster here suggested). A P2P MMO is competing against everything else that takes up your time. In our minds, thats how we justify it...we pay for only as much as we feel we have time to play. Its not something associated with F2P games, even though we spend more its mostly on impulse purchases and done before the brain (in younger players) has time to really process the effects of the transaction against their play time in game.
In both cases these games are effectively anti-consumer in design. One seeks to draw the game out arbitrarily to keep people paying. The other seeks to arbitrarily spike difficulty at peak moments to keep you paying for ways around it. Some are even more vile, flagging the user as a predisposed buyer and raising the gate even higher to bleed them. Neither style of game is actually ABOUT what is fun. Its about doling fun out and then gating you in order to draw money out of you. They are ALL terrible. GW2 actually has the best design, the game is box sale only so it HAS to win on its own merits to encourage future xpack sales.
GW2 isn't a F2P game. It's B2P, which is different. It has the advantage of collecting a lot of the initial sales, with the longevity of F2P games. It's really more like the P2P games that go F2P than it is like a F2P game.
I've personally had the best experience with B2P games overall and had the most satisfaction from those games. It is the model that has the most similarity with all of the non MMORPG that I've purchased too, which makes it a comfortable purchase. But we're not talking about the merits of B2P. :-(
If EQN or ESO released as a F2P game, then we'd have our example. I think even WildStar releasing as a F2P game and being successful would be good enough. WildStar isn't necessarily the AAA game that people are looking at, but I think it would be big enough to count.
**
I think ArcheAge would be a fine example too, if it were successful and released as F2P.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
its quite simple really. just because a dev/pub decides to charge $15 a month doesn't mean the game is actually worth $15 a month. the ones that are make plenty of money.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
You mean other than some people just like a game being built based on it.
iv skipped reading a lot of the post on this one cause I can safely assume that the thread as degenerated into the normal argument for and aginst F2P
now that aside im sure most who have read my post ( if anyone bothers to :P ) know im not for F2P. so when I say that P2P dose I fact not make more profit on average for companies the F2P I would hope people would not think me being some silly twit.
the point in fact is the main reason companies have been changing over to F2P has not been for the good of gamers it is simply cause it makes them more money, the reason why people like me prefer P2P over F2P is several, which im not going to go into currently.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to
Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
Unless someone has intimate details of the revenue streams of a specific title, regardless of the business model, don't trust what they say.
Businesses are in business to make money, and if one company feels that it can generate better, more sustainable revenues with business model A rather than B, C, D, E or whatever, they will try that method. If the officers choose badly, they will be out of work, and they know that. That is the free-market system at work.
Bottom line: the revenue model is unrelated to the game's quality.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Actually, it is a F2P game in every aspect of its design and monetization, but with a front loaded client fee.
"It's B2P, which is different."
That statement is the greatest gift that MMO gamers ever gave the industry.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
If you could link me to a single post from any game where a group of players lauded the enrage mechanic, I will willingly concede to your point.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I agree with everything you said exept the last part, I beleave the current module in use dose not incourage a company to improve upon the quality of the game but instead play psychological tricks to get you to spend money in the cash shop.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to
Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
I do not. That is why i play F2P games. So far, i spent exactly zero on them.
F2P is the better business model and has the potential to be A LOT more profitable, but that varies from game to game.
WoW is a sub game WITH a small marketplace and service fees, but just because it hasn't gone F2P doesn't mean it is better or won't make more money... Just stop and use your brain. The game came out at a time when there really wasn't much to choose from, let just say they got a head start of sorts. It built a massive player base which has gotten smaller over the years, but it is still massive. Now tell me, if you invested years of your time, money, ect. into a game would you leave at the first sight or something that may be better? Most would likely say no, but those that don't probably wouldn't realize what they're giving up for a new game because not only are you leaving your character behind, you're also leaving your friends and everyone else you made bonds with over the years... That is, of course, if they're not leaving with you.
I am certain that WoW's player base will dwindle so much eventually that it will either go F2P or shut down completely with the latter being the most unlikely. So why doesn't WoW go F2P? It simply doesn't need to because while the potential IS there to make a lot more money than it already does, the stigma behind the F2P model isn't worth the risk IMO. People will have mixed feelings about the change and might leave because of the bad rap that the F2P model has been given.
EVE on the other hand may be a subbed game, but it does give players a way to continue playing without spending a dime... I might be wrong about this as I don't play it, but it is what I've heard.
So to answer your question... F2P is much better for games that are just starting, especially in the gaming society as it is today. Games simply won't make near as much money with a sub as they could with a F2P model and I stand behind that opinion because I very much doubt that some absolutely spectacular game will come out with a sub and be able to hit WoW's numbers.
Why picture something that is not realty? We already know that there are whales who pay through the roof.
Let's picture many players spend exactly zero, and a few whales pays through the roof .....
hmm .. it looks like a great situation .. for the free players.
Planetside 1 tried the in-game advertising, but it didn't last very long because people would just find a why to block the advertisements.
They aren't good enough to hold a profitable and stable playerbase. That is why.
Played-Everything
Playing-LoL
AAA type MMORPG's can not support free to play.
But all these games went free to play as a last resort to knock off some money from the fans.
Do NOT be fooled, F2P doesn't work for AAA type MMO's as these are too costly to make.
What you see is B2P games that were initially launched as subscription based games (and developped) are turning into F2P, but no one would make them anymore in the long run.
tldr: F2P is good for little things, like Facebook games, iPad games, small things.
Real open world MMORP's are too costly to make to support F2P in the long run.
It is a shake out really.
GW2 isn't a F2P game. It's B2P, which is different. It has the advantage of collecting a lot of the initial sales, with the longevity of F2P games. It's really more like the P2P games that go F2P than it is like a F2P game.
Actually, it is a F2P game in every aspect of its design and monetization, but with a front loaded client fee.
"It's B2P, which is different."
That statement is the greatest gift that MMO gamers ever gave the industry.
You've described how it's different. The front loaded client fee is the difference.
I can play all the way through SWToR without paying a client fee, but if I want to play all the way through GW2, I have to pay the client fee. SWToR is F2P and GW2 is B2P. The monetization of B2P and F2P is different. Since the monetization is different, GW2 is not a proof of F2P being a good model for both initial and long term money gain.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
yeah, I like that. Makes a lot of sense to me and is a pretty good way to frame things. No matter what the subject.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
The whole reason so many MMOs went F2P is because they expect to make MORE money than if they were P2P. Not less. Where do you get the idea that sub games always make more money? They don't, except for WoW, and that's been a huge exception for MMOs across the board in profit. MMO companies learned pretty fast that they aren't going to earn the money that WoW is earning, and games such as LOTRO & SWTOR have been discovering that they earn a higher profit via microtransactions by bringing in a lot more people playing for free that are later willing to buy extras for their characters. Subscription games were failing miserably and being cancelled or shutdown left and right because they didn't earn enough to sustain them, so something needed to change and LOTRO was one of the first to prove a new method worked.
FTP/BTP can and has supported AAA titles. Where is this idea ftp doesn't make money? ftp makes more money than subs, unless you have a huge sub base. In this itunes world, people are willing to spent a bit here and there even though it might add up to more than 15 a month.
You know once upon a time people bought albums and cds. You can cry about the long gone days, but it doesn't change the reality of how things work now.
If everyone in the world ate potatoes all at once, we'd run out of potatoes the first day and we wouldn't have any french fries until the next crop of potatoes came in.
**
The point is that almost nothing is good if everyone does it, and almost anything can be good in small measures, especially if applied correctly.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The AAA titles I have played that have gone the ftp route tend to keep the sub option around and I think a majority of people who enjoy the game still sub. Subbing usually makes gameplay easier and more fun, so many do it. Games that retain the sub option do very well this way. Assuming since the game is ftp that most people are not subbing is a bad assumption. Free players generally don't stick around long so you find them mostly at the lower levels.