Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Which Payment Model Do You Prefer In Your MMORPG?

1235

Comments

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Trudge34
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Arclan

     


    Originally posted by p0nk1n
    sub no cash shops. everyone pays the same and no one gains an unfair advantage with money.

     

    Exactly. 65% of us chose Sub with no cash shop; everyone else is spread out amongst the other choices. Clear winner. And this is considering those F2P lovers probably have multiple MMORPG accounts.

    Only because MMORPG is not representative. In the US, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1.

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

     

    "So, yes, it would appear that F2P may be a viable revenue model, partly because of the large number of gamers it attracts.But traffic alone is not a definitive measure of success. Overall spending may follow a very different trend depending on a game’s life cycle, player base and genre."

    Number of players means jack if they aren't spending. Make a quality MMO and people will spend. Obviously that hasn't been the case recently.

    Just pointing out that Arclan's number does not represent the US.

    And you also miss "The good news is that in 2012, F2P MMOs made more than their P2P counterparts, capturing the majority of the MMO US market’s revenue."

    So there is more money than p2p .. the question is WHO is getting that money.

  • RobokappRobokapp Dublin, OHPosts: 5,205Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Robokapp
    Originally posted by worldalpha
    F2P is here to stay.

    you don't think it'll have trouble due to oversaturation ?

     

    it's hard for a f2p game to compete against many f2p games and achieve financial stability.

     

    So? The market for f2P is big. So if there is competition, and there is some failure & consolidation.

    MANY f2P games are good for consumers. We have choices.

    choices aren't always good.

     

    F2Ps are great at painting why.

     

    MMO #1102 has this great feature.

    MMO #3441 has this other great feature.

     

    oh how well they'd go together and how much we'd enjoy an mmo with both. But we don't have such an MMO. instead we have...choices.

    image

  • MibletMiblet BognerPosts: 333Member

    I too would be interested in seeing who is getting the customers in the F2P market.  It would be interesting to see if this information was pointing at merely more money in the F2P market, or more money from the game model per title.

    I have a suspiscion it would be the former but it would be interesting (especially with those games that have switched model) to see how the models compare with more data.

     

    I don't think that this spells the end of P2P models regardless (something people have been predicting for as long as they have existed).

  • RobokappRobokapp Dublin, OHPosts: 5,205Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Arclan

     


    Originally posted by p0nk1n
    sub no cash shops. everyone pays the same and no one gains an unfair advantage with money.

     

    Exactly. 65% of us chose Sub with no cash shop; everyone else is spread out amongst the other choices. Clear winner. And this is considering those F2P lovers probably have multiple MMORPG accounts.

    Only because MMORPG is not representative. In the US, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1.

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

     

    but according to the 90/9/1 rule, or 89/10/1 or w/e...the number of CONSUMERS is 0.6 to 1 for F2P vs P2P. or 3 to 5.

     

    P2P remains ominant in terms of business model as the 90% of free players don't engage in any form of business.

    image

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Miblet

    I too would be interested in seeing who is getting the customers in the F2P market.  It would be interesting to see if this information was pointing at merely more money in the F2P market, or more money from the game model per title.

    I have a suspiscion it would be the former but it would be interesting (especially with those games that have switched model) to see how the models compare with more data.

     

    I don't think that this spells the end of P2P models (something people have been predicting for as long as they have existed) regardless.

    Obviously we don't have full data. However we do know:

    1) F2P market revenue is starting to over-take p2p.

    2) LoL & WoT are very successful.

    3) STO, DCUO, DDO and a few others are successful enough to add expansions, and new content.

    My take is that just like any gaming market, there are a few big hits, and some doing ok, and a lot of failure. That is not so different than the shooter market. CoD, Biosock, Halo & GOW probably took a large part of the market and there are a lot of failure.

    This is also no different than the movie market .. also driven by hits. For every Avenger (which makes more than 1.5B) there are a lot of movies like the latest Stanlone come-back which probably did not make back the production cost.

    Heck, even the p2p market is like that. There is only one big hit, and many failures. The only difference is that fail p2p can go f2p, so there is a way out, unlike SP games, and movies.

  • quikmixxquikmixx Lexington, SCPosts: 14Member

    Problem I have with f2p and b2p games have to do strictly with how they make the games. Once a development team has made up its mind to use either f2p and b2p, in many cases, the entire game is structured around the model. Forcing you to spend money in order to have an equal experience with the other person who spends money. If you think otherwise you are fooling yourself.

     

    I rather have p2p with no cash shop because then i know the developers can spend more time on real meaningful content instead of releasing crappy new cosemetic items that know one even cares about or some silly armor templates (looking at you TERA). 

     

    Just ask yourself simply, if I don't have a model like p2p, why would i (if i were the developer) waste my time adding content that doesn't make my investor's more money?

     

    With p2p   time = money, longer your players play, the more money you make, which means I (developer) can focus on actual content like player housing, sieges, territory wars, new story with new contnent, etc... . And if there is no content, just unsub, and companies see an immediate negative impact of not streamlining new content.

     

    with f2p   items = money, more items in cash shop, more money you are likely to make,  which makes adding anything more besides cosmetic items to the game a nuisance to developers, because it doesn't guarantee more money like the items do. 

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Robokapp
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Arclan

     


    Originally posted by p0nk1n
    sub no cash shops. everyone pays the same and no one gains an unfair advantage with money.

     

    Exactly. 65% of us chose Sub with no cash shop; everyone else is spread out amongst the other choices. Clear winner. And this is considering those F2P lovers probably have multiple MMORPG accounts.

    Only because MMORPG is not representative. In the US, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1.

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

     

    but according to the 90/9/1 rule, or 89/10/1 or w/e...the number of CONSUMERS is 0.6 to 1 for F2P vs P2P. or 3 to 5.

     

    P2P remains ominant in terms of business model as the 90% of free players don't engage in any form of business.

    Free players are content for the paid  players. Without them, there will be fewer paid players, and may be they don't pay as much because there are fewer people to impress with their $10 magic sword.

     

  • Effin_RabbitEffin_Rabbit Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 773Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Theocritus
    I jsut dont get the love  here for the p2p model...I spent over 1k on EQ from 2000-05 and have nothing to show for it......I would take any f2p over any p2p any day because you save so much more money.....And what p2p is so great that you guys are so enamored with this model?. WoW? Eve? Theres a reason why this model is dying and that's because its a total ripoff.

    This. The only difference between p2p with payed expansions and b2p with dlc is the individuals willingness to be taken advantage of.

  • jalexbrownjalexbrown Indianapolis, INPosts: 120Member
    Originally posted by fantasyfreak112

    Um...no?  Free to play isn't the same as pay to win; they're pretty different things.  First of all you have to consider how people are going to define pay to win.  I don't see things like experience potions as pay to win; one person plays for two hours and another plays for two days, but in the end they're still in the same spot.  The person that pays to get there faster doesn't ensure theirself victory over the person that didn't.  In fact the person that spent two days instead of two hours playing may have become more familiar with the mechanics of the game because they had to play longer, so they might come out ahead in the grand scheme of things.

    Whatever helps you justify buying pay to win crap......

    Ironically I've never bought anythign except cosmetics (in only one MMO) in any cash shop.  But I must ask: Why do you post this mindless reply instead of trying to provide any justification whatsoever as to why you would consider an experience potion a pay to win item?  Could it be the fact that there is no justification?

     

    And I asked once before, but I don't think anyone replied, so...to anyone preferring sub without a cash shop: What game currently has a sub and no cash shop?  If you're going to knock an all cosmetic cash shop, then you also must eliminate WoW, Eve, UO, and any other MMO with RMTs.  What's left with a sub and no cash shop?

  • RobokappRobokapp Dublin, OHPosts: 5,205Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Robokapp
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Arclan

     


    Originally posted by p0nk1n
    sub no cash shops. everyone pays the same and no one gains an unfair advantage with money.

     

    Exactly. 65% of us chose Sub with no cash shop; everyone else is spread out amongst the other choices. Clear winner. And this is considering those F2P lovers probably have multiple MMORPG accounts.

    Only because MMORPG is not representative. In the US, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1.

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

     

    but according to the 90/9/1 rule, or 89/10/1 or w/e...the number of CONSUMERS is 0.6 to 1 for F2P vs P2P. or 3 to 5.

     

    P2P remains ominant in terms of business model as the 90% of free players don't engage in any form of business.

    Free players are content for the paid  players. Without them, there will be fewer paid players, and may be they don't pay as much because there are fewer people to impress with their $10 magic sword.

     

    okay. I agree. but then you must agree with my .6 to 1 since you confirmed those 90% serve as content not as consumers.

    image

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

    I too would be interested in seeing who is getting the customers in the F2P market.  It would be interesting to see if this information was pointing at merely more money in the F2P market, or more money from the game model per title.

    I have a suspiscion it would be the former but it would be interesting (especially with those games that have switched model) to see how the models compare with more data.

     

    I don't think that this spells the end of P2P models (something people have been predicting for as long as they have existed) regardless.

    Obviously we don't have full data. However we do know:

    1) F2P market revenue is starting to over-take p2p.

    2) LoL & WoT are very successful.

    3) STO, DCUO, DDO and a few others are successful enough to add expansions, and new content.

    My take is that just like any gaming market, there are a few big hits, and some doing ok, and a lot of failure. That is not so different than the shooter market. CoD, Biosock, Halo & GOW probably took a large part of the market and there are a lot of failure.

    This is also no different than the movie market .. also driven by hits. For every Avenger (which makes more than 1.5B) there are a lot of movies like the latest Stanlone come-back which probably did not make back the production cost.

    Heck, even the p2p market is like that. There is only one big hit, and many failures. The only difference is that fail p2p can go f2p, so there is a way out, unlike SP games, and movies.

    That the F2p market is more popular I am not suprised at all by, the mobile gaming market has proven that the pricing system does work and is very attractive.  I have enjoyed a fair few F2P titles just as I would assume most people here have.

    I also agree that there there will be various sized chunks of the markets being dominated by various products (true of every market for every good or service).

    The main thing I would love to see is the profitability of the titles to see how the F2P model stacks up against the P2P model.  Whether the F2P titles truly are more profitable than P2P, or if they are less profitable per title but far cheaper and faster to produce and therefore can influence market share to a higher degree with far less associated risk.

  • quikmixxquikmixx Lexington, SCPosts: 14Member
    Originally posted by Darth-Batman
    Originally posted by Theocritus
    I jsut dont get the love  here for the p2p model...I spent over 1k on EQ from 2000-05 and have nothing to show for it......I would take any f2p over any p2p any day because you save so much more money.....And what p2p is so great that you guys are so enamored with this model?. WoW? Eve? Theres a reason why this model is dying and that's because its a total ripoff.

    This. The only difference between p2p with payed expansions and b2p with dlc is the individuals willingness to be taken advantage of.

    The same can be said with b2p and f2p, same things in f2p cash shops are often also in a b2p cash shop.   Bank space, character slots, consumables that boost exp  or crafting, mystery box keys.............etc

    Your gasping at straws.  And you still have to pay for expansion packs in b2p games, what a rip-off (sarcasm).

    Its not about just the money when you deal with f2p games, often 9 times out of 10, expect majority of the content to be in the form of cosmetic items or mounts( even though most f2p games don't have mounts anyway). And also with f2p and b2p games, expect them to continuously push the limits on what they will add to the cash shop, and then say "opps, my bad" when they add something the community  doesn't like and they will defend their actions by saying you got the game for free, so deal with it.

     

    Like i said i choose p2p with no cash shop, i personally hate p2p with cash shop, because i consider it double dipping but many of the mmos are going that route as well, which sucks.

     

     

  • tinuelletinuelle bergenPosts: 287Member Uncommon

    Why isnt F2P with no cash shop an alternative?

    would be my choice.

    image
  • RobokappRobokapp Dublin, OHPosts: 5,205Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by tinuelle

    Why isnt F2P with no cash shop an alternative?

    would be my choice.

    because such games are non-MMO. they're typically flash games, open-code games or shooters.

    image

  • SiveriaSiveria Saint John, New BrunswickPosts: 1,200Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sevenstar61
    Sub. F2P is ruining all MMO industry. Soon we are not going to have any AAA games....

    I don't mind this since most AAA games suck ass for the most part in recent years.. Its not like were losing much, I personally find indie games alot more fun than AAA titles since they actually have ya know, good gameplay in some of them. I think I have spent more time in terraria/drox operative than I have in any AAA title in recent years. AAA titles tend to be short, and 80% of the budget seems to go on making it look pretty insted of ya know, actually making a fun game. Squaresoft is especally guilty of this ever since they went to ps2. I'd take a Persona or Tales game over anything final fantasy, they are just better more intersting/fun games in my eyes.

    Back to the question. I don't care for subbing because I lack a Credit card and have to buy prepaid cards, I prefer f2p as long as its not completly pay2win (there ARE some games like that believe it or not). Warframe is an example, while you can pay for stuff, you can earn pretty much all of it by just playing the game, it just takes longer. So its more like free to play, pay to get stuff faster. Though some of their prices on some of the stuff is a little silly. 225 cash shop currency is like 20 bucks, yet the weap is in the shop for 50k ingame credits (which 50k is not hard to get at all). Most of the time you need to craft the items, which once you get the mats takes 12 hours to up to 3 days. like Warframes come in 3 parts, a head, systems and chassis u have to build these take 12 hours each (u can build as many things as u want at once) then you need the final blueprint which is buyable for like 30-35k credits (in game money from missions etc) which then takes 3 rl days to assemble the frame. SO while its slower, you can get everything without paying a dime.

    Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:

    A. Proven right (if something bad happens)

    or

    B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)

    Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!

  • SulaaSulaa nPosts: 1,151Member Common

    P2P with no microtransactions at all.   - BUT only strictly for MMORPG of certain design&features:

     

     

    1. Relatively well funded.  Swtor / GW2 budget not needed, but cannot be few million indie project like MO,DFO.Xsylon.

    2. Mainly PVE. Limited PVP possible, but not necessary.

    3. Open world - one world, no cross-server, no zoning and no zone cloning.

    4. Instanced dungeons ok, but cannot be only or crushingly dominating focus.

    5. No automatic & teleporting LFG tool. Manual LFG tisting tool possible.

    6. No add-ons, no macroing, no dps and other meters.

    7. Western rather serious style. No WoW/GW2 sillysness, pop-culture or modern easter eggs/references. No asian kawaii stuff.  Eventual funny or relaxing things have to draw from in-game lore and be tamed. Think Game of Thrones style of handling fantasy.

    8. Combat - either tab combat with existence of pro-active classes like Lotro's Warden or Rune-Keeper OR some new kind of combat system that uses enviromental physics - you can slip on ice, get tired  in snow, rain douse fire and make you move slower, etc

    9. Interesting ccrafting + decay system + player shops without or with limited only AH.

    10. No hand-holding = no quest gps, no pop-ups, no omnipotent item highlighting and map markers telling you what to do.

    11. Fast exploit fixing, stern approach to cheating, generally banning cheaters, gold seller and gold buyers.

    12. No microtransaction of any kind. ANY.

    13. Focused on getting medium sized playerbase / niche.   Cannot be one trying to appeal to middle mainstream population and trying to get fat millions rivaling WoW, GW2 or  other popular onine games like CoD / LoL/ Diablo 3.

    14. Challanging.  No mind-numbing face-rolling to get 5000 tokens or game world polluted with fields of mobs standing next to each other in every single space.  Adventure, challange, danger and game world that make more sense.

     

     

     

    That's what I will gladly pay susbcription for and a premium priced subsciption as well (meaning hogher than 15$). 

    I won't pay subsciption (or even play for free in first place)  for games like  WoW, Swtor, GW2, TSW, AoC, NWN Online, Vanguard, C9, TERA, Rift and similar.

     

     

  • dllddlld GöteborgPosts: 541Member Uncommon
    Voted B2P, but with an ideal mmo one where you can literally spend 8+ hours a day for years without being bored if you could i'd pay a sub, don't believe one of those will exist in a very very long time though.
  • korent1991korent1991 CakovecPosts: 1,390Member
    Originally posted by Theodredd
    Subscription only. The best way. No magic advantages. Full access to all content. 

    until the devs tell you.. "we know that we're asking a redicilous price for our subs, but if you want to play this new content you'll have to cash out 30-60$"

    full access my ass :D

    "Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
    -------------------------------

    image
  • AlverantAlverant Wheaton, ILPosts: 526Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Velocinox

    Don't care.

    Too many people are worried about pay2win nonsense. Who cares? If they want to subsidize you playing for free why does it bust your chops? You mad because rich people have advantages over you? Welcome to capitalism, kid.

    Don't want to pay the company for their work? think they should release a game for free because that's how all the others are doing it? Think that Buy2Play is too much money? Welcome to capitalism, kid.

    Hate Pay2Play schemes that nickle and dime you for things other games give you for free? Then don't play! You aren't entitled to play this game just because your buddies are! live with the restrictions or pony up the dough. Welcome to capitalism, kid.

     

    It's all the same folks, it's YOU and your CRYING that is the only difference between the business models.

     

    Let's apply that logic to other games.

    Other team bribed the coach? Welcome to capitalism, kid.

    Other team used steroids? Welcome to capitalism, kid.

    Other team paid some money to reduce the penalties on their star player? Welcome to capitalism, kid.

    You won but the other guys flashed some cash and had the score changed? Welcome to capitalism, kid.

    Someone put a hit on your MVP? Welcome to capitalism, kid.

    Your star player threw the game to win a gambling bet? Welcome to capitalism, kid.

  • AlverantAlverant Wheaton, ILPosts: 526Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ZedTheRock

    Subscription is a dieing revenue model and its been shown time and time again over the last 5 or 6 years that it is a barrier to entry, retards growth, and makes far less money for the game then any of the other models.

    Have any hard data to back that up? Seriously. I want to see the data. And how do FtP games last over a time span of say, 8 years?

  • AlverantAlverant Wheaton, ILPosts: 526Member Uncommon

    MMOs are a service like cable or phone. When you subscribe you are invested in the game and as such you get to have certain expectations of the game being maintained and available. Likewise companies can expect a certain income a month so they can better plan for the future.

    FtPs are like hanging around a Starbucks using their WiFi and occasionally buying a small coffee so they can't ask you to leave then saying you add value to the place by providing paying customers someone to talk to if they feel like it.

  • HorusraHorusra maryland, MDPosts: 2,579Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Alverant

    MMOs are a service like cable or phone. When you subscribe you are invested in the game and as such you get to have certain expectations of the game being maintained and available. Likewise companies can expect a certain income a month so they can better plan for the future.

    FtPs are like hanging around a Starbucks using their WiFi and occasionally buying a small coffee so they can't ask you to leave then saying you add value to the place by providing paying customers someone to talk to if they feel like it.

    And like cable service most people have one.  That limits the market and chokes off competitors because you have to lure people away from existing service and small service providers die off that would provide a nitche.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Alverant
    Originally posted by ZedTheRock

    Subscription is a dieing revenue model and its been shown time and time again over the last 5 or 6 years that it is a barrier to entry, retards growth, and makes far less money for the game then any of the other models.

    Have any hard data to back that up? Seriously. I want to see the data. And how do FtP games last over a time span of say, 8 years?

    F2p games have been around since the very beginning of MMO's and before MMORPG.  If the game is fun, they last just fine.

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • AyulinAyulin Mt marion, NYPosts: 334Member
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    O

    You're missing the bigger picture there. 

     

    - How many stick around for more than a few hours before deciding they don't like the game and leave? Just because they're "checking it out" doesn't mean they're "staying".

    It's not the number that leave that matter, it's the ones that stay, many of which were able to try and play for as long as they need to decide they want to spend money on the game. 

    - How many of those who do stick around, do so without ever spending a dime?

    The ones paying have more people to play with, so the non-paying players serve an important function. They expand the pool of people to group with, socialize with and play against. 

    Your third point seemed like just a rewording of the second.

     

    Free to play games don't suffer free free players - they bank on them being there because they are a crucial part of the business model. 

     

    Oh no, I understand that perfectly; the idea of "players as content". That aspect of it just isn't relevant to the point I was making or responding to in my post. I never said the "free free players" had no purpose." They absolutely do.

    My point was to argue the idea that when marketing/PR talks about their game having "millions of accounts", with the intent of making the game seem like a huge success, they're not giving the whole story. They're playing with numbers in an "accurate" but misleading way.

    Considering every account ever created for a F2P MMO is an "active account" - even if the owner hasn't played it in months - the number becomes meaningless to brag about, and dubious to use as an indication of the game's popularity.

    It would be like me bragging that  have an entire wall of my garage stacked up with 12-pack soda cases. Sounds real impressive, 'til you realize they're all empty cans.

    Hence, my point in saying that if you're talking about how wildly successful the MMO is, then you have to take into consideration how many stick around beyond "testing it out", and how many of those go on to become paying players. I've never seen the actual numbers (because F2P companies never release them publicly - that I've been able to find anyway), but I would feel very safe betting the number of actively played accounts is nowhere near "several million", and of those, the "paying" players are far fewer.

    The most accurate depiction a F2P MMO's PR could give of their game is to say "we have X members actively playing the game (according to some specific criteria, like login frequency), and Y percent of those use the cash shop on a regular basis". I have yet to see a F2P MMO's population described in that manner. In every case I've seen, they talk about "active accounts".

    I will add, though, that even having other players around "as content" only goes so far. Every F2P MMO I've tried has had lots of people running around. It didn't make the game more enjoyable for me, and even with the one I got the farthest in (level 30-ish in Perfect World, a few years back), I never saw the same people running around for very long. I'd meet people, talk to them, and put them on my friends list. I'd see them a few times, and then they'd never log in again. Now that may be anecdotal, and "only my experience", but I hardly believe it's unique to me.

     

  • CecropiaCecropia Posts: 3,472Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Alverant
    Originally posted by ZedTheRock

    Subscription is a dieing revenue model and its been shown time and time again over the last 5 or 6 years that it is a barrier to entry, retards growth, and makes far less money for the game then any of the other models.

    Have any hard data to back that up? Seriously. I want to see the data. And how do FtP games last over a time span of say, 8 years?

    F2p games have been around since the very beginning of MMO's and before MMORPG.  If the game is fun, they last just fine.

    Furcadia, Maplestory etc. Woooooohooooo!

    Awesome games for the little ones, but for us here? Who cares.

    "Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb

Sign In or Register to comment.