Do you think the freedom to choose exactly what you want hasn't affected the way you perceive and perhaps appreciate other games?
Basically you saying this: Imagine you like cola but dislike cherry. And possibly if there were only cola with cherry flavour you may get used to it and drink.
The answer is NO. Chances are that people don't buy at all something that doesn't suit their needs well. So that's why we have all this cherry, lemon, whatever flavoured cola - to please everyone and get maximum profit by doing so.
What I am saying is that if you have only cherry flavored cola to drink, you are more likely to learn to appreciate it. Because you have choices, it is easy to dismiss cherry flavored cola, even if you could learn to like it eventually.
You'd have to have more than one choice or you wouldn't appreciate it at all. But I agree people generally pick the best one rather than non of the above.
The main difference with mmos is people tend to imagen the game that want and pick it over all the real ones. So they're not picking none of the above they're picking one they'll never be able to play.
Originally posted by Arglebargle If 100 new free players lead to five who will pay, statistically, you just have to keep getting 100 new players.
Not really because statistically there is as much of a chance as a coin landing on heads 100 times as there is it landing on heads 50 times and the other 50 being tails. Each roll resets the odds. There isn't an accumulation or check and balance system behind the scenes that accounts for entropy being dissuaded. In other words, there is just as much chance of you tossing every page of a book in the air and them landing in order as them landing out of order without a binding holding them in place.
lol your example was said wrong.
There is a higher chance pages will fall out of order then in order since there are more out of order variations. What you meant to say is - all of the individual out of order variations have the same chance of happening as being in order.
lol it's sort of a hard thing to actually try and describe to someone. Hopefully I helped a little.
Example:
Throwing 3 pages in the air.
There is only 1 chance of them falling into a 1, 2, 3 order.
However there is, if I did the math correct, 26 other variations all out of order. So there is a much higher chance they would fall out of order.
If we separate all those individually however, they all have the same chance of being landed on. 1/27 chance.
Originally posted by Arglebargle If 100 new free players lead to five who will pay, statistically, you just have to keep getting 100 new players.
Not really because statistically there is as much of a chance as a coin landing on heads 100 times as there is it landing on heads 50 times and the other 50 being tails. Each roll resets the odds. There isn't an accumulation or check and balance system behind the scenes that accounts for entropy being dissuaded. In other words, there is just as much chance of you tossing every page of a book in the air and them landing in order as them landing out of order without a binding holding them in place.
lol your example was said wrong.
There is a higher chance pages will fall out of order then in order since there are more out of order variations. What you meant to say is - all of the individual out of order variations have the same chance of happening as being in order.
lol it's sort of a hard thing to actually try and describe to someone. Hopefully I helped a little.
Example:
Throwing 3 pages in the air.
There is only 1 chance of them falling into a 1, 2, 3 order.
However there is, if I did the math correct, 26 other variations all out of order. So there is a much higher chance they would fall out of order.
If we separate all those individually however, they all have the same chance of being landed on. 1/27 chance.
Yeah I removed that, what I was thinking of is theoretical so I can only mention it but not prove it. Entropy is supposed to work both directions but it can't be understood to turn order to disorder and disorder to order, that's the place where you toss them up and they all align though physicists say it's possible. We're just used to disorder coming from order, things break - people die - nothing repairs itself when you throw it against the wall etc.
Ya .. I understand what you mean. In other words, you can throw 1,000 pages that are all out of order in the air and it's very possible the first throw could put all the pages in order. Many people would automatically write it off and say impossible. How ever it isn't impossible at all. There is just of much chance of that happening as it landing in any given out of order sequence.
Mobile, PC, sports, Trekkies, model ship builders... the graph will be the same. PC falls into the same category as "any."
Most people are passive enthusiasts when it comes to their preferred entertainment. As it moves up the scale you go through a slow rise and then the massive fanatic upswing, swooping into that 1% that plaster their house, body and surroundings with it. Business as usual.
So, your thought is, take advantage of the fans and let all the other people ride for free. You think that they won't ever become exhausted or deplete their funds. They are a piggy bank that is constantly full and they can't ever die and/or take away that money.
Or is it more like, let a sucker be a sucker. I say the model is broken, it may not show today but it has to falter because the people who don't have a history of paying aren't going to produce children who suddenly want to pay unless there is a huge shift somewhere. Who will replace the suckers or if they notice their yummy tasty center and the stick up their butt, who is going to stop them from leaving, are the games going to say "It's double free this week, oh do come back!". You can't get cheaper than free, it's bottom of the barrel so what carrot can be put in front of them.
Whoa there. You act as if the people that spend a ton on their passion are suckers for doing so. Worse, you're suggesting I am in favor of such behavior. Let's dial it back a bit, green. Drop the ridiculous (and vulgar) comparisons, and don't assign motivations to people that aren't there.
Some people really get into their hobbies. They'll buy 50" and bigger TVs for their living room just to watch their favorite sport. There's even people that will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to own a used baseball glove.
They aren't being suckered into doing these things. They enjoy these things. That graph doesn't show anything shocking or new. It's the normal spread of how people consume entertainment products and services. TONS of passive folks and then a big soar at the end to the HOLYCOW super-fanatics.
When those people buy 95% of the baseball gloves and the company they bought them from give away 90% of their baseball gloves at 0.00 to 0.94 then we have equal comparisons.
The core issue is still that 5% of players support 95% of players and if those 5% of players change their thought pattern, they have complete control to wreck the model and there is no bargaining chip left to bring them back with any longer. You can romanticize it and say they like the situation and won't ever change their mind but that's not guaranteed.
What is guaranteed in a model where everyone pays equally is that one leaving is always one leaving instead of one leaving representing a larger percentage of income. If you gain one in return you get exactly what you lost, if you lose one big spender you can't guarantee another spender will take their place. The one to one ratio is fiscally sound.
The equal comparison - that 90% - is the crowd that watches the game for free on TV. You're really having a lot of trouble with this I see.
"What is guaranteed in a model where everyone pays equally..."
What entertainment service or product are you comparing this to where everyone pays the same exact thing and there isn't that 10% spending a ton and 1% going crazy with it? I'm trying to figure out what you are basing any of this on.
I'm not having trouble with anything, a free TV show is free for everyone. If you want to claim that 5% of the people paid for seats in an auditorium and 100% were seated just because they showed up and that being in that stadium is the same experience as sitting on your couch then I wonder how they ever sell tickets to live events at all.
We are talking about a product that only exists because 5% of the people pay for it while 100% enjoy it.
The charts are the basis. Now we've come to a circle. Address the points.
Can a person who is paying for the majority of the game leave.
If that person leaves, does it change the income of the game significantly or only slightly. If two of those people leave etc.
How do you gain the people to begin with, kiss a lot of frogs and hope for a prince or have a strong IP which is the basis for fandom.
I claim that people are spending, you are caught up in justifying their spending. I'm concerned with the effect they produce when they stop spending. That's where it all short circuits.
If you think that someone can never stop spending once they start then that's not the same in my mind. If you think their passion will outweigh everything else that can come in the future - graphic wise or gameplay wise that would keep them a wandering soul trying any game they like and funding any game they like then that's our impasse.
If you do agree that they can leave (by will or circumstance) then what I predict can surely come true.
And some a small percentage goes to the games, and a smaller percentage buys season tickets and an even smaller percentage buys a team. The free part of an MMO is free for everyone. Some buy extra. A tiny few buy a metric ton extra. This isn't difficult, green.
Yes, people are spending. No one questioned that. To address the second part, I wasn't justifying anything. I was replying to your unnecessary accusations and rather inappropriate comparison.
If there is no new blood coming into the market, then yes. Are you suggesting that everyone who will play an MMO has played them already? Are you suggesting that MMOs don't have significant churn and rely on extremely high retention rates? Can you PLEASE give an example of where you are getting this? Pick ANYTHING in the entertainment industry. Just one example.
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
Preferences are one thing, but reading stuff like this I can't help but feel that all they are doing is coming up with excuses. If you had only one MMORPG, you'd learn to appreciate it, whether you initially didn't. Either that or you wouldn't be playing MMORPGs at all.
I think you're correct. I'm not sure I would agree that players make 'excuses', but perhaps that's close enough to the truth. When faced with an abundance of choices, it's normal to compare the features of each offering against a checklist of desirable features and to dismiss those that don't meet all or most of the chief criteria. And when even relatively small decisions become over-complicated, you can quickly become frustrated by indecision, feel overwhelmed by the desire to find the perfect solution and end up not making a choice at all. Paralysis by analysis.
Being overloaded by choice has certainly affected my gaming habits. Right now I have so many unplayed sp games that I don't feel inclined to play any of them. I know if I start one, I'll just hop to another when I start to get bored - and I invariably will, as I find that most games are far too long for me these days. But knowing that I'll feel so unsatisfied by my failure to complete any of them, the best course of action seems to not to even start. It's a silly situation and a problem that is entirely of my own devising (with a little help from Steam).
Of course someone who only plays MMOs can call themselves a gamer. Likewise for someone who only plays driving and shooters.
If you only like one MMO the reason might be that there are not that many good ones about rather than the idea that you are being something of a stick in the mud by keeping to one. God forbid in this age of play for a week and throw away MMOs that anyone sticks to one MMO, that thought must of horrified you Quirhad! But then you seem to say that us only having one MMO might be a good thing, so hard to tell where you stand on that.
I loved your reasons for why players won't play a new MMO. It is as if you think the entire playerbase are infants railing at new MMOs. I have seen the sort of thing you mentioned but people do have good reasons for not wanting to play MMOs too you know.
When it comes to MMO land things tend to be done one way. So I am not sure what you are talking about with cherry flavoured cola. MMOs don't seem to come in many different flavours to me, perhaps you could be more specific as to what MMOs you are talking about?
(reply to post #34. not quoting as it's huge and doesn't contain anything really relevant to the discussion.)
green, none of that explains why you feel that MMOs are different from every other entertainment service or product in regards to how they are consumed and the money people spend on them. No company waits until their big spenders are gone to say "Oh dear. I guess we have to close our doors and go home." If they did, then YES, the house of cards that you describe would come tumbling down. That's not a F2P thing, that's a Basic Business 101 thing, as any company or provider is damaged greatly by the loss of their biggest and most reliable accounts. Luckily, most companies aren't run by college freshmen, so they're usually aware of this issue and regularly working to get new prospects in the door.
Now, there's also the lifecycle of an entertainment product or service. When the fad/hype/appeal is gone, the big spenders are gone. This is independent of the business model, and subscription would be hit just as hard as free to play when that happens.
"Takeaway: There is more money to be made by switching back to sub games in earnest for developers." - greenreen
Your conclusion is assuming most MMO gamers rather pay a subscription. You're assuming that the people who never pay in a free to play game are likely to convert to paying in a sub game. You're also assuming that the problems solved by free to play (dead servers, no one to group with, reactivation hesitance once sub is stopped) will somehow no longer be a problem. Your conclusion/prediction/intuition thing is based on a lot of assumptions; assumptions that seem to contradict history, not just of MMOs but of the entire entertainment 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
I don't agree with the idea of "learning to appreciate" something because of lack of options. Thirty years ago if I didn't like what was on the 7 TV stations I received, I didn't watch TV. Same goes for video game genres now.
If liking 1 MMORPG does not make you a fan of the genre, then how many does? Any attempt to define what a "real" mmorpg gamer is just leads down that path of no true scotsman arguments.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
I don't agree with the idea of "learning to appreciate" something because of lack of options. Thirty years ago if I didn't like what was on the 7 TV stations I received, I didn't watch TV. Same goes for video game genres now.
If liking 1 MMORPG does not make you a fan of the genre, then how many does? Any attempt to define what a "real" mmorpg gamer is just leads down that path of no true scotsman arguments.
Wait.
Are you saying you are a true scotsman?
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
Originally posted by dave6660 I don't agree with the idea of "learning to appreciate" something because of lack of options. Thirty years ago if I didn't like what was on the 7 TV stations I received, I didn't watch TV. Same goes for video game genres now.If liking 1 MMORPG does not make you a fan of the genre, then how many does? Any attempt to define what a "real" mmorpg gamer is just leads down that path of no true scotsman arguments.
That was kind of my feeling when I read Quirhid's post.
The over-generalization and assumptions can get out of hand, sometimes. I like a few Jazz musical artists. Does that make me a fan of ALL jazz? No. There are good and bad jazz artists. If I enjoyed playing EQ, does that mean I will enjoy UO, AC1, AoC, DAoC, too? When does a player become a fan?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I don't remember where I heard this. In a video, podcast or whatever, there was a guy who talked about how the abundance of choice has made picky about what we watch, listen to, or read. He used TV shows as an example and stated how "back in the day" you didn't have as many channels as you have now, so you watched what was on and had a much better chance of learning to appreciate it.
I'm not sure the TV example is a good one, it's still relatively new media in the scheme of things, people generally used to watch a lot less TV when they didn't have so much choice and the environment in which we choose our leisure activities hasn't been stable since the masses started gaining significant leisure time in which to choose things to do.
There has been dramatic swings in regard to the amount of time we have for leisure and the choices we have. For example it would be easier to use reading novels as the standard because they have been around longer but if we did we would have to account for literacy levels, mass access to the same books in order to have a standard and the ever increasing introduction of other leisure activities. That's just to begin with, and that is just using books as the example which is a lot easier than a tv and even easier still than a sort of new and very specific genre of video games.
Without going into too much detail I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be but it's interesting non the less.
I don't agree with the idea of "learning to appreciate" something because of lack of options. Thirty years ago if I didn't like what was on the 7 TV stations I received, I didn't watch TV. Same goes for video game genres now.
If liking 1 MMORPG does not make you a fan of the genre, then how many does? Any attempt to define what a "real" mmorpg gamer is just leads down that path of no true scotsman arguments.
Wait.
Are you saying you are a true scotsman?
No, I could never wear a kilt.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
Comments
You'd have to have more than one choice or you wouldn't appreciate it at all. But I agree people generally pick the best one rather than non of the above.
The main difference with mmos is people tend to imagen the game that want and pick it over all the real ones. So they're not picking none of the above they're picking one they'll never be able to play.
lol your example was said wrong.
There is a higher chance pages will fall out of order then in order since there are more out of order variations. What you meant to say is - all of the individual out of order variations have the same chance of happening as being in order.
lol it's sort of a hard thing to actually try and describe to someone. Hopefully I helped a little.
Example:
Throwing 3 pages in the air.
There is only 1 chance of them falling into a 1, 2, 3 order.
However there is, if I did the math correct, 26 other variations all out of order. So there is a much higher chance they would fall out of order.
If we separate all those individually however, they all have the same chance of being landed on. 1/27 chance.
Ya .. I understand what you mean. In other words, you can throw 1,000 pages that are all out of order in the air and it's very possible the first throw could put all the pages in order. Many people would automatically write it off and say impossible. How ever it isn't impossible at all. There is just of much chance of that happening as it landing in any given out of order sequence.
It's fun to think about it.
And some a small percentage goes to the games, and a smaller percentage buys season tickets and an even smaller percentage buys a team. The free part of an MMO is free for everyone. Some buy extra. A tiny few buy a metric ton extra. This isn't difficult, green.
Yes, people are spending. No one questioned that. To address the second part, I wasn't justifying anything. I was replying to your unnecessary accusations and rather inappropriate comparison.
If there is no new blood coming into the market, then yes. Are you suggesting that everyone who will play an MMO has played them already? Are you suggesting that MMOs don't have significant churn and rely on extremely high retention rates? Can you PLEASE give an example of where you are getting this? Pick ANYTHING in the entertainment industry. Just one example.
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 think you're correct. I'm not sure I would agree that players make 'excuses', but perhaps that's close enough to the truth. When faced with an abundance of choices, it's normal to compare the features of each offering against a checklist of desirable features and to dismiss those that don't meet all or most of the chief criteria. And when even relatively small decisions become over-complicated, you can quickly become frustrated by indecision, feel overwhelmed by the desire to find the perfect solution and end up not making a choice at all. Paralysis by analysis.
Being overloaded by choice has certainly affected my gaming habits. Right now I have so many unplayed sp games that I don't feel inclined to play any of them. I know if I start one, I'll just hop to another when I start to get bored - and I invariably will, as I find that most games are far too long for me these days. But knowing that I'll feel so unsatisfied by my failure to complete any of them, the best course of action seems to not to even start. It's a silly situation and a problem that is entirely of my own devising (with a little help from Steam).
Of course someone who only plays MMOs can call themselves a gamer. Likewise for someone who only plays driving and shooters.
If you only like one MMO the reason might be that there are not that many good ones about rather than the idea that you are being something of a stick in the mud by keeping to one. God forbid in this age of play for a week and throw away MMOs that anyone sticks to one MMO, that thought must of horrified you Quirhad!
But then you seem to say that us only having one MMO might be a good thing, so hard to tell where you stand on that.
I loved your reasons for why players won't play a new MMO. It is as if you think the entire playerbase are infants railing at new MMOs. I have seen the sort of thing you mentioned but people do have good reasons for not wanting to play MMOs too you know.
When it comes to MMO land things tend to be done one way. So I am not sure what you are talking about with cherry flavoured cola. MMOs don't seem to come in many different flavours to me, perhaps you could be more specific as to what MMOs you are talking about?
(reply to post #34. not quoting as it's huge and doesn't contain anything really relevant to the discussion.)
green, none of that explains why you feel that MMOs are different from every other entertainment service or product in regards to how they are consumed and the money people spend on them. No company waits until their big spenders are gone to say "Oh dear. I guess we have to close our doors and go home." If they did, then YES, the house of cards that you describe would come tumbling down. That's not a F2P thing, that's a Basic Business 101 thing, as any company or provider is damaged greatly by the loss of their biggest and most reliable accounts. Luckily, most companies aren't run by college freshmen, so they're usually aware of this issue and regularly working to get new prospects in the door.
Now, there's also the lifecycle of an entertainment product or service. When the fad/hype/appeal is gone, the big spenders are gone. This is independent of the business model, and subscription would be hit just as hard as free to play when that happens.
"Takeaway: There is more money to be made by switching back to sub games in earnest for developers." - greenreen
Your conclusion is assuming most MMO gamers rather pay a subscription. You're assuming that the people who never pay in a free to play game are likely to convert to paying in a sub game. You're also assuming that the problems solved by free to play (dead servers, no one to group with, reactivation hesitance once sub is stopped) will somehow no longer be a problem. Your conclusion/prediction/intuition thing is based on a lot of assumptions; assumptions that seem to contradict history, not just of MMOs but of the entire entertainment 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
I don't agree with the idea of "learning to appreciate" something because of lack of options. Thirty years ago if I didn't like what was on the 7 TV stations I received, I didn't watch TV. Same goes for video game genres now.
If liking 1 MMORPG does not make you a fan of the genre, then how many does? Any attempt to define what a "real" mmorpg gamer is just leads down that path of no true scotsman arguments.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
Wait.
Are you saying you are a true scotsman?
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 over-generalization and assumptions can get out of hand, sometimes. I like a few Jazz musical artists. Does that make me a fan of ALL jazz? No. There are good and bad jazz artists. If I enjoyed playing EQ, does that mean I will enjoy UO, AC1, AoC, DAoC, too? When does a player become a fan?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I'm not sure the TV example is a good one, it's still relatively new media in the scheme of things, people generally used to watch a lot less TV when they didn't have so much choice and the environment in which we choose our leisure activities hasn't been stable since the masses started gaining significant leisure time in which to choose things to do.
There has been dramatic swings in regard to the amount of time we have for leisure and the choices we have. For example it would be easier to use reading novels as the standard because they have been around longer but if we did we would have to account for literacy levels, mass access to the same books in order to have a standard and the ever increasing introduction of other leisure activities. That's just to begin with, and that is just using books as the example which is a lot easier than a tv and even easier still than a sort of new and very specific genre of video games.
Without going into too much detail I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be but it's interesting non the less.
No, I could never wear a kilt.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville