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.
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.
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)
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$).
I won't pay subsciption (or even play for free in first place) for games like WoW, Swtor, GW2, TSW, AoC, NWN Online, Vanguard, C9, TERA, Rift and similar.
Voted B2P, but with an ideal mmo one where you can literally spend 8+ hours a day for years without being bored if you could i'd pay a sub, don't believe one of those will exist in a very very long time though.
Originally posted by Theodredd Subscription only. The best way. No magic advantages. Full access to all content.
until the devs tell you.. "we know that we're asking a redicilous price for our subs, but if you want to play this new content you'll have to cash out 30-60$"
full access my ass
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
- 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.
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
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.
I agree, not my cup of tea but they do show that f2p has just as much longevity as a p2p and reinforce the point that it's the fun of the game not the payment model that will determine success.
If it's fun and appeals to your audience it will stick around and make money. If not, it eventually goes away.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
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.
But there's no commitment. It means the consumer can try it for a while then leave when it gets bored. What happened to the idea of sticking it out through thick and thin? Where's the fandom? Companies will shift towards making a lot of money right away before the fickle attention of the players go elsewhere.
How many big ftp games have lasted longer than 5 years?
ETA the examples described are small scale games. Can a ftp game be as extensive as some of the sub models and last as long?
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.
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.
Yeah .. i agreed. I play lots of F2P games .. and i don't engage in any form of business. You are right on.
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.
If you are the type of player to spend $1k on EQ, you would probably have spent $5k if it employed a robuest "F2P" model. Be thankful your spending was limited to $15 a month.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Subscription, definitely. It tells me that the game was created for long-term profit and hence it will likely focus on content that lasts longer than mere months.
When I start a new MMORPG, I always begin with the thought of playing the game for years on forward. F2P and B2P don't tend to support such longetivity.
Edit: Also wanted to say, I don't really think about the pricing of games when I start playing them. Games eat up such a little portion of my budget anyway. Knowing what the payment model of a game is is important to me only because of its implications to gameplay.
Sub, no cash shop, I like to know what I am spending, and not feel like someone is trying to get into my wallet everytime I log in. I also think community clean up can be more effectively done in a sub game, even though no one does a stellar job on it usually.
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.
If you are the type of player to spend $1k on EQ, you would probably have spent $5k if it employed a robuest "F2P" model. Be thankful your spending was limited to $15 a month.
And i spend nothing .. so i am thankful others can spend $5k on robust F2P games and subsidize my gaming.
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.
But there's no commitment. It means the consumer can try it for a while then leave when it gets bored. What happened to the idea of sticking it out through thick and thin? Where's the fandom? Companies will shift towards making a lot of money right away before the fickle attention of the players go elsewhere.
How many big ftp games have lasted longer than 5 years?
ETA the examples described are small scale games. Can a ftp game be as extensive as some of the sub models and last as long?
I"m sure there are many f2p games that have lasted longer than 5 years, someone else can look them up.
Commitment - most people may not be committed to them. However I would venture that most people are not committed to p2p either. There is likely just as much fandom for the game whether it is f2p or p2p, fandom is ruled by the fun of the game, not the payment model. Sticking it through thick and thin? Most won't do it. As soon as they are bored of the game they will leave, p2p or f2p will not change that. They are in it for entertainment only, once that stops they are done.
Some of the recent f2p games are producing content faster than some p2p games.
f2p has nothing to do with longevity. It has nothing to do with a game being a success. A good f2p will be around a long time and make money. A bad f2p will eventually die. No difference from f2p.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
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.
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.
Why isnt F2P with no cash shop an alternative?
would be my choice.
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!
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.
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
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
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.
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?
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.
F2p games have been around since the very beginning of MMO's and before MMORPG. If the game is fun, they last just fine.
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.
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
I agree, not my cup of tea but they do show that f2p has just as much longevity as a p2p and reinforce the point that it's the fun of the game not the payment model that will determine success.
If it's fun and appeals to your audience it will stick around and make money. If not, it eventually goes away.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
But there's no commitment. It means the consumer can try it for a while then leave when it gets bored. What happened to the idea of sticking it out through thick and thin? Where's the fandom? Companies will shift towards making a lot of money right away before the fickle attention of the players go elsewhere.
How many big ftp games have lasted longer than 5 years?
ETA the examples described are small scale games. Can a ftp game be as extensive as some of the sub models and last as long?
Yeah .. i agreed. I play lots of F2P games .. and i don't engage in any form of business. You are right on.
If you are the type of player to spend $1k on EQ, you would probably have spent $5k if it employed a robuest "F2P" model. Be thankful your spending was limited to $15 a month.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Subscription, definitely. It tells me that the game was created for long-term profit and hence it will likely focus on content that lasts longer than mere months.
When I start a new MMORPG, I always begin with the thought of playing the game for years on forward. F2P and B2P don't tend to support such longetivity.
Edit: Also wanted to say, I don't really think about the pricing of games when I start playing them. Games eat up such a little portion of my budget anyway. Knowing what the payment model of a game is is important to me only because of its implications to gameplay.
The Weekly Wizardry blog
Sub, no cash shop, I like to know what I am spending, and not feel like someone is trying to get into my wallet everytime I log in. I also think community clean up can be more effectively done in a sub game, even though no one does a stellar job on it usually.
And i spend nothing .. so i am thankful others can spend $5k on robust F2P games and subsidize my gaming.
I"m sure there are many f2p games that have lasted longer than 5 years, someone else can look them up.
Commitment - most people may not be committed to them. However I would venture that most people are not committed to p2p either. There is likely just as much fandom for the game whether it is f2p or p2p, fandom is ruled by the fun of the game, not the payment model. Sticking it through thick and thin? Most won't do it. As soon as they are bored of the game they will leave, p2p or f2p will not change that. They are in it for entertainment only, once that stops they are done.
Some of the recent f2p games are producing content faster than some p2p games.
f2p has nothing to do with longevity. It has nothing to do with a game being a success. A good f2p will be around a long time and make money. A bad f2p will eventually die. No difference from f2p.