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!

If sub games make more money, why are they all going F2P?

123468

Comments

  • SuperPanekiSuperPaneki New York, NYPosts: 62Member
    They lie. Do you really think that having a profitable business, you're gonna take the risk to change it? I don't. Most games going ftp are games that otherwise would shut down their servers. Blizzard is a good example. But, of course, WoW keeps being a woth paying to play game. I can't say it of other game sadly.
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairPosts: 5,588Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Doogiehowser
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer

    A lot of people are tossing around a lot of speculations and opinions.

    It's really simple. Games that go F2P aren't good enough. That's all there is to it.  If a game is worth it, it will hold subscribers. If it isn't it will not get them or lose them. 

     

    Game developers want subs? That's easy. They need to stop making games that suck or leave nothing to work for after a month of play.

    And you are not? image

    Ultimately, I guess you'd be correct in that, but it's not so much speculation as it is just basic marketing. The price has to match the product or people don't buy.

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairPosts: 5,588Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loke666
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer

    A lot of people are tossing around a lot of speculations and opinions.

    It's really simple. Games that go F2P aren't good enough. That's all there is to it.  If a game is worth it, it will hold subscribers. If it isn't it will not get them or lose them. 

    Game developers want subs? That's easy. They need to stop making games that suck or leave nothing to work for after a month of play.

    A good game will earn money no matter what payment model it uses.

    What isn't speculation is that many devs have stated that F2P just make more money.

    What we players need to do is to play games who's payment model we support and don't put in 50 bucks the first month we play a new game. Just pick a sum you want to pay (I have $15 a month as max myself) and avoid games that you must both buy stuff and pay a sub for to do well in the game.

    TERA and DDO as example have good F2P models while EQ2s on the other hand is really bad. And if the companies wont make more on F2P we will see new P2P or B2P games in the future.

    We have to assume that you start off with a product that has some value to it. That being said, there is some intrinsic value to the product or service that people will be willing to pay. You have to hit that target.

    If you have to (or in some cases, can't even) give your product away for free, your product has little to no value in the demographic. The idea is that F2P will somehow expand the demographic. But this isn't what's happening in some  MMOs that go F2P. There is a different dynamic. Once it's obvious that the game isn't generating the revenue the developers want, they try to come up with new ways to re-monetze the remaining player base to recoup the loss from the canceled subs. Anarchy Online and SWTOR are good examples of this. In these cases, the cash shop is just a form of exploitation.

     

    But that's not the only issue with the cash shop model. GW2's cash shop model is not without it's issues.  In an attempt to not give the game away, (And I don't blame ANET for this, they are a company out to make money after all) They have designed certain incentives into the game to buy gems, But they aren't mandatory, you can play around the gem shop if you choose to. Again, that's fine. But because of high trade taxes and restrictions on players, GW2 has one of the worst in-game economies in an MMO I've ever played. Which has an impact on players who enjoy that particular meta-game aspect of MMOs. or in my case, a profoundly negative impact on the crafting market. Crafting is probably my favorite meta-game in the MMOs I play. And in GW2, the crafting system is great. But the reasons to actually do crafting in GW2 suck. So while I recognize that game developers need to make money, it becomes extremely bad (in my own opinion) when the need for profit somehow surfaces in the game play itself, and also where real money is converted into game currency.

    ANET did a great job in keeping their CS from being P2W.  But I don't think they did a good job in proving that a CS can exist in a game without negative impact.

    I'd rather pay the subscription and have everything in the game 100% equal opportunity from there on.

  • Yyrkoon_PoMYyrkoon_PoM Reseda, CAPosts: 150Member

    The f2p market is a high risk/high reward market.  You can make a lot of money in it, but attract too big a % of the free players and you end up making less than you could have if there was a sub. However, if you can attract a fair amount of "whales" and plan out your cash shop offerings you stand to reap a whole lot of cash.  Sub games have a ceiling on how much money they can make and it directly relates to the number of subs it has, and while they can add in a cash shop they must be very careful what they put in it as they do not want to lose their subs.

     

    In the end f2p games are all about the cash shop and control.  How much can the developer manipulate the players and cash shop to extract the most amount of profit? That is the real game in f2p games. Seasonal and limited time items will always sell very well, and a company that keeps a close eye on its metrics knows exactly when and how much they can add/subtract at any given time. The developer can control or manipulate how much money they make by watching the trends and spending habits of its player base, and anticipating/reacting to players spending patterns.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Robokapp
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Robokapp
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Witten
    Why are you buying into a game made to empty your wallet?

    I do not. That is why i play F2P games. So far, i spent exactly zero on them.

    one modern philosopher once said that to understand if an idea or action is good or bad, simply imagine everyone in the world doing it at once and the answer will be obvious.

    so...let's picture f2p MMOs where everyone spends exactly zero.

     

    -either they live from in-game advertising. not a big deal in sci-fi, problem in fantasy. [p.s. I wish this was tried once. I can see a Grand Theft Auto mmo where real car brands and various bilboards and product placements are integrated. Would driving real-named cars really be immersion-breaking? or driving past a pepsi bilboard?]

    -or they don't live period.

     

     

    Why picture something that is not realty? We already know that there are whales who pay through the roof.

    Let's picture many players spend exactly zero, and a few whales pays through the roof .....

    hmm .. it looks like a great situation .. for the free players.

     

    answer to red is in green.

    Well, then you can imagine the action in any context .. and it can be good or bad depending on the context .. so it is absolutely useless.

    In this case.

    1) Many players spend exactly zero, some whales spends a ton .... good for many.

    2) Every player spends exactly zero. Game company bankrupts and no game to play ... bad.

     

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,453Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Sovrath

    Originally posted by Robokapp

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by Witten Why are you buying into a game made to empty your wallet?
    I do not. That is why i play F2P games. So far, i spent exactly zero on them.
    one modern philosopher once said that to understand if an idea or action is good or bad, simply imagine everyone in the world doing it at once and the answer will be obvious.    
    yeah, I like that. Makes a lot of sense to me and is a pretty good way to frame things. No matter what the subject.

    If everyone in the world ate potatoes all at once, we'd run out of potatoes the first day and we wouldn't have any french fries until the next crop of potatoes came in.

    **

    The point is that almost nothing is good if everyone does it, and almost anything can be good in small measures, especially if applied correctly.

     

    I think I'll take it as the thoughtful  way it was intended. And not your thing.

     

  • NadiaNadia Canonsburg, PAPosts: 11,866Member Common
    Originally posted by Caldrin

    There are two main reasons games go f2p..

     

    1. They are bad

    2. They are old

    its more involved than that

     

    SOE has adopted the business strategy that *all their games*  including future games will be ftp

     

    March PAX 2013 video interview

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wVIIIZ6ETtY#at=129

  • SnarlingWolfSnarlingWolf Thereiam, ARPosts: 2,697Member
    Originally posted by Fendel84M

    I'm not against P2P and I'm not against F2P I like all models(to some extent).

    But I hear it tossed around a lot, that P2P games make more money and get more updates and are hence better. If this is true, why are almost all the P2P games going F2P? Do they just hate money?

    Even Rift, which was every P2P die hard's anthem. "Look at Rift! That game pumps out so much content because it is P2P!" well...they went F2P. Were they tired of making all that money?

    Other than WoW, Eve is one of the only hold outs with a sub. But even that game allows players to basically buy in game currency through the plex system. (buy tons of plex and sell it all in game) so it's not a pure P2P game with everyone equal regardless of money spent.

    I am just curious what the reasoning here is. The P2P games are better, because they make more money, yet they all have to go F2P. Something feels off...

     Let's take a look at TV for second.

     

    High quality dramas are expensive to make, but at the same time they tend to top out the ratings charts and so they bring in more ad revenue. However, that more money can (and did) often mean lower profit margins because the cost to make the drama is so high. With all the competition out there they found a new approach, reality TV.

     

    Reality TV is very cheap to make in general. It also tends to get significantly fewer viewers (with the exception of the mega hit American Idol, but the viewership is dropping fast). Those fewer viewers mean less ad revenue. However, the costs are so so low that they make a bigger profit margin by doing the crappy and cheap reality TV. And because they need so few viewers to make that good profit margin there is room for many crappy reality TV shows in existence as once because they each need a fraction of the viewers that a large high budget, high quality drama needs.

     

    So sometimes for companies it is actually better to produce a lesser product and bring a lower amount of money if the production cost is so low that the margins go up. If you have a f2p game and focus on popping out something that takes a few of hours to make, like a simple weapon and can charge $5 to everyone for that weapon you can make more money than someone who is investing tons of man hours to create new, compelling, deep, content as content is the most time consuming part of the MMO process.

     

    That's general the theory people are going with when they say F2P makes less money.

  • NephaeriusNephaerius Baltimore, MDPosts: 1,539Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Fendel84M

    I'm not against P2P and I'm not against F2P I like all models(to some extent).

    But I hear it tossed around a lot, that P2P games make more money and get more updates and are hence better. If this is true, why are almost all the P2P games going F2P? Do they just hate money?

    Even Rift, which was every P2P die hard's anthem. "Look at Rift! That game pumps out so much content because it is P2P!" well...they went F2P. Were they tired of making all that money?

    Other than WoW, Eve is one of the only hold outs with a sub. But even that game allows players to basically buy in game currency through the plex system. (buy tons of plex and sell it all in game) so it's not a pure P2P game with everyone equal regardless of money spent.

    I am just curious what the reasoning here is. The P2P games are better, because they make more money, yet they all have to go F2P. Something feels off...

     Sub games don't make more money than F2P games.  In fact, games that originally had a mandatory sub that then go f2p with an optional sub wind up with more subs than prior to the F2P transition.  F2P makes more money.  That's why folks are using it.  Every model has its own benefits so this is not to say the sub model is without any, but making more money isn't one of them.

    Steam: Neph

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

     Sub games don't make more money than F2P games.  In fact, games that originally had a mandatory sub that then go f2p with an optional sub wind up with more subs than prior to the F2P transition.  F2P makes more money.  That's why folks are using it.  Every model has its own benefits so this is not to say the sub model is without any, but making more money isn't one of them.

    Sub-only game is being taken over by F2P games. Just look at the trend last 2-3 years. I don't think sub games have any compeling benefit left .. not to devs anyway.

  • EunuchmakerEunuchmaker Harlingen, TXPosts: 204Member
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    Originally posted by lizardbones Sub game make more money at release. F2P games make more money long term. So games release as P2P, then go F2P to maximize the money made. I suppose it's possible for a F2P game to make a bunch of money at release too, but we haven't really had a good example of it.
    Your example of it is Guild Wars 2, but to acknowledge that would cause several heads around here to explode.

    GW2 isn't a F2P game. It's B2P, which is different. It has the advantage of collecting a lot of the initial sales, with the longevity of F2P games. It's really more like the P2P games that go F2P than it is like a F2P game.
     

    Actually, it is a F2P game in every aspect of its design and monetization, but with a front loaded client fee.

    "It's B2P, which is different."

    That statement is the greatest gift that MMO gamers ever gave the industry.

     

    Hmmm . . . so if every new F2P mmo from here on out charged you $50-$60 up front just to play it, as long as it didn't have a sub, you would still call it F2P?  The fact that I cannot even log into it without paying the fee up front doesn't change the fact I suppose. 

    I guess the mmorpg.com community is grateful for now knowing that the term buy to play (B2P) is hogwash.

  • APRIMEAPRIME Harlingen, TXPosts: 72Member
    Originally posted by Eunuchmaker
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    Originally posted by lizardbones Sub game make more money at release. F2P games make more money long term. So games release as P2P, then go F2P to maximize the money made. I suppose it's possible for a F2P game to make a bunch of money at release too, but we haven't really had a good example of it.
    Your example of it is Guild Wars 2, but to acknowledge that would cause several heads around here to explode.

    GW2 isn't a F2P game. It's B2P, which is different. It has the advantage of collecting a lot of the initial sales, with the longevity of F2P games. It's really more like the P2P games that go F2P than it is like a F2P game.
     

    Actually, it is a F2P game in every aspect of its design and monetization, but with a front loaded client fee.

    "It's B2P, which is different."

    That statement is the greatest gift that MMO gamers ever gave the industry.

     

    Hmmm . . . so if every new F2P mmo from here on out charged you $50-$60 up front just to play it, as long as it didn't have a sub, you would still call it F2P?  The fact that I cannot even log into it without paying the fee up front doesn't change the fact I suppose. 

    I guess the mmorpg.com community is grateful for now knowing that the term buy to play (B2P) is hogwash.

    Yeah, I didn't really follow that logic either.  I guess I'll go pick up some F2P XBOX games at Gamestop . . . they'll be single player RPG's, not mmo's, but they don't have a sub, so I like to think of them as being free.  Sucks that  I need to shell out 60 bones to be able to play them  though.

     

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairPosts: 5,588Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by APRIME
    Originally posted by Eunuchmaker
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    Originally posted by lizardbones Sub game make more money at release. F2P games make more money long term. So games release as P2P, then go F2P to maximize the money made. I suppose it's possible for a F2P game to make a bunch of money at release too, but we haven't really had a good example of it.
    Your example of it is Guild Wars 2, but to acknowledge that would cause several heads around here to explode.

    GW2 isn't a F2P game. It's B2P, which is different. It has the advantage of collecting a lot of the initial sales, with the longevity of F2P games. It's really more like the P2P games that go F2P than it is like a F2P game.
     

    Actually, it is a F2P game in every aspect of its design and monetization, but with a front loaded client fee.

    "It's B2P, which is different."

    That statement is the greatest gift that MMO gamers ever gave the industry.

     

    Hmmm . . . so if every new F2P mmo from here on out charged you $50-$60 up front just to play it, as long as it didn't have a sub, you would still call it F2P?  The fact that I cannot even log into it without paying the fee up front doesn't change the fact I suppose. 

    I guess the mmorpg.com community is grateful for now knowing that the term buy to play (B2P) is hogwash.

    Yeah, I didn't really follow that logic either.  I guess I'll go pick up some F2P XBOX games at Gamestop . . . they'll be single player RPG's, not mmo's, but they don't have a sub, so I like to think of them as being free.  Sucks that  I need to shell out 60 bones to be able to play them  though.

     

    The keyword Loktofeit is using here is monetization. It's how the game is designed to earn revenue after the initial account creation or box purchase in the case of B2P. Once you get past that point of entry, there is little difference in business models between F2P and B2P.

     

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

    The keyword Loktofeit is using here is monetization. It's how the game is designed to earn revenue after the initial account creation or box purchase in the case of B2P. Once you get past that point of entry, there is little difference in business models between F2P and B2P.

    But there is a huge difference BEFORE you get past that point of entry.

    F2P enables easy entry. $60 does not. That is a world of difference.

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,762Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Caldrin
     

    There are two main reasons games go f2p..

     

    1. They are bad

    2. They are old

    its more involved than that

    SOE has adopted the business strategy that *all their games*  including future games will be ftp

    March PAX 2013 video interview

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wVIIIZ6ETtY#at=129

     

     

    Not a bad criteria, but being an old MMO in MMO land used to be five years old. Now you are an old MMO if you have been out a year.

    I always hold judgement on specific games until as close to the review as possible, so same for EQ next. I liked the way the interviewer Jess who must be what 25(?) liked the "new" ideas in PS2. :)

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by lizardbones   Originally posted by Sovrath Originally posted by Robokapp Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Witten Why are you buying into a game made to empty your wallet?
    I do not. That is why i play F2P games. So far, i spent exactly zero on them.
    one modern philosopher once said that to understand if an idea or action is good or bad, simply imagine everyone in the world doing it at once and the answer will be obvious.    
    yeah, I like that. Makes a lot of sense to me and is a pretty good way to frame things. No matter what the subject.
    If everyone in the world ate potatoes all at once, we'd run out of potatoes the first day and we wouldn't have any french fries until the next crop of potatoes came in. ** The point is that almost nothing is good if everyone does it, and almost anything can be good in small measures, especially if applied correctly.  
    I think I'll take it as the thoughtful  way it was intended. And not your thing.
     


    Simplistic ideas are not necessarily thoughtful ideas. You would be amazed at the number of philosophical ideas that lead to very practical applications. The modern scientific method for one.

    If this quote was actually made*, it would be very interesting to see the rest of the document it came from, to see the quote in context and understand what the person who said it really meant. I doubt it had anything to do with MMORPG business models.

    But in the interest of being "thoughtful", let's apply the original quote to the subject of this thread. Everyone plays F2P games and nobody pays a dime. Well, of course what happens is that all the MMORPG go away, because nobody is playing any B2P, or P2P games either. That's not evil, that's just market dynamics. It's also an irrational way to look at the world, because it won't happen.

    * Funny how this quote isn't attributable to anyone and apparently doesn't exist on Google. Could it be that the quote is actually, "Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it" - Augustine of Hippo?

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairPosts: 5,588Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
     

    The keyword Loktofeit is using here is monetization. It's how the game is designed to earn revenue after the initial account creation or box purchase in the case of B2P. Once you get past that point of entry, there is little difference in business models between F2P and B2P.

    But there is a huge difference BEFORE you get past that point of entry.

    F2P enables easy entry. $60 does not. That is a world of difference.

    I agree with you in this regard.

    But, with that "world of difference" I feel that players are entitled to a better experience over a standard F2P modeled game than what B2P currently offers. While I will say I got my $60 out of GW2 and I do enjoy the game, I don't like many of the overall impacts within the game, this model has offered.

    (I've mentioned some in previous posts)

    GW2 has solidified my dislike for Cash Shops. They may have the best one in the industry. And it may not be as obnoxious as others, but Real money injected into the game has ruined many aspects of MMOs I like. I am really looking forward to FF:ARR now that they have announced a Sub model with no CS.

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

    But there is a huge difference BEFORE you get past that point of entry.

    F2P enables easy entry. $60 does not. That is a world of difference.

    I agree with you in this regard.

    But, with that "world of difference" I feel that players are entitled to a better experience over a standard F2P modeled game than what B2P currently offers. While I will say I got my $60 out of GW2 and I do enjoy the game, I don't like many of the overall impacts within the game, this model has offered.

    (I've mentioned some in previous posts)

    GW2 has solidified my dislike for Cash Shops. They may have the best one in the industry. And it may not be as obnoxious as others, but Real money injected into the game has ruined many aspects of MMOs I like. I am really looking forward to FF:ARR now that they have announced a Sub model with no CS.

    Players are not entitled to anything. It is a free market. The devs can make and charge his game as he pleases. A consumer can decide to participate or not. Anything else is just talk and positioning.

    If you paid $60 for GW2, you don't dislike the cash shop enough (btw, it was common knowledge before launch) to vote with your feet. And you have nothing to complain about. It is not like GW2 defraud you.

     

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairPosts: 5,588Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     

    But there is a huge difference BEFORE you get past that point of entry.

    F2P enables easy entry. $60 does not. That is a world of difference.

    I agree with you in this regard.

    But, with that "world of difference" I feel that players are entitled to a better experience over a standard F2P modeled game than what B2P currently offers. While I will say I got my $60 out of GW2 and I do enjoy the game, I don't like many of the overall impacts within the game, this model has offered.

    (I've mentioned some in previous posts)

    GW2 has solidified my dislike for Cash Shops. They may have the best one in the industry. And it may not be as obnoxious as others, but Real money injected into the game has ruined many aspects of MMOs I like. I am really looking forward to FF:ARR now that they have announced a Sub model with no CS.

    Players are not entitled to anything. It is a free market. The devs can make and charge his game as he pleases. A consumer can decide to participate or not. Anything else is just talk and positioning.

    If you paid $60 for GW2, you don't dislike the cash shop enough (btw, it was common knowledge before launch) to vote with your feet. And you have nothing to complain about. It is not like GW2 defraud you.

     

    I disagree. If I am paying $60 for a game, I believe I am entitled to a better experience than a game I did not pay a dime for. Regardless of how the game is designed to bring in continued revenue.

    Also, what was not common knowledge was the long term impact real money flowing into the game would have on the economic based meta-games. I can't even count how many times in the early months I heard or read people complaining about the game's economy and someone else would say, it's still too early and it will balance out in time. It never did. Saying "you should have known better" is a bit of a cop-out answer. Nor do I feel defrauded. I am saying it's a live and learn thing. Nothing more. I had higher expectations of a B2P game. And I also feel my expectations were reasonable.

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

    I disagree. If I am paying $60 for a game, I believe I am entitled to a better experience than a game I did not pay a dime for. Regardless of how the game is designed to bring in continued revenue.

    Also, what was not common knowledge was the long term impact real money flowing into the game would have on the economic based meta-games. I can't even count how many times in the early months I heard or read people complaining about the game's economy and someone else would say, it's still too early and it will balance out in time. It never did. Saying "you should have known better" is a bit of a cop-out answer. Nor do I feel defrauded. I am saying it's a live and learn thing. Nothing more. I had higher expectations of a B2P game. And I also feel my expectations were reasonable.

    I suppose you can feel entitled, and clearly no one can stop you feeling what you feel. However, it is a free world, and no devs is obligated to do a thing just because you feel so. Let me put it this way .. even if you feel entitled, there is no guarantee in the world that your entitlement will be fulfilled.

    What if you pay $60 and you don't get that experience you think you deserve? You have zero resource.

    Secondly, i was NOT talking about long term impact. I am talking about the existence of a cash shop, and what they sell. It is pretty clear what GW2 has, and has not before you even purchase the game. In that sense, you have all the information that a dev can provide you.

     

     

     

  • RizelStarRizelStar Raleigh, NCPosts: 2,773Member

    It's because of time really, back then devs and/or publishers coul state because of server fee and/or content updates.

     

    Now n days many great games are starting out B2P and/or f2p.

    That and competition.

     

    Logic is starting to be seen as "Why pay 15 dollars a month, plus paying for expansions on top of that and there is a cash shop? Why?!?"

    Cause like I say many times, okay we can hate some of these B2P mmos, the game itself, but seriously the payment models are looking the best money wise and just common sense, all these P2P examples are turning into F2P the ones that aren't are only P2P because they 

    made.it.in.time(Read this 10xs repeatedly)

     

    Wow can't just come out now nor any of the other P2P games and try to forced P2P down our throats, that will not work for  a lot of people, especially if expansions aren't free, and in the end there are cash shops for wants.

    The more B2P and F2P games with non pay to win cash shops, also ability to get cash shop items by playing the game to get in game currency for cash shop items, and the fact that most f2p and b2p cash shop mmos are including wants not needs, it's seriously hard to want P2P models or hard to justify p2p model period.

     

    Come to thin of it like I said in another thread, pro p2p players are another reason p2p won't strive, becaus eof expectations these days and most of the expectations are over the top. Let's be in touch with reality a game can release with almost all the things that would keep a p2p player loving what he/she plays and wants, but I garuntee you that they will end their subs not long after, least the mass, why? Cuase all it takes is for there to be cheaper yet almost compariable experiences with different models, that an there is usually and always an issue with any game regarding quality or quantity, even if you fin a way to get both right it still won't be enough, there is always a want that is so big will cause a lot of people to unsub.

     

    So to me the only way p2p could strive is if it becomes say 50 dollars a year or 2-5 dollars a month, cause 15 is honestly too much. Sure people will do it for their dream mmos but let's get real here, what are the chances of them being made and due to personnal preferences what is the chances of them remaining p2p? I'm not saying cope with suck ass mmos, because not every mmorpg is made for everyone.

    People claim they want harder and complex mmos...yet once you master something complex or hard over time, it becomes easy, then complaints rise up. People talk as if P2P gives more updates and content, hate or not other mmos with different payment models are starting to match and exceed that.

     

    P2P time is looking to run out at least 15 dollars a month p2p is. Server costs aren't so expensive and quality alongside quantity video games are being released. That's just how it is.

    I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.

    I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.

    P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)

    Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,762Member Uncommon

    You should certainly expect more from a P2P MMO and in nearly all cases you get more. The GW2 cash shop issue was played down, cash shops always are made to sound much better than they turn out to be. Currently words along the line of "you can get anything in game that you can buy in the cash shop" are to be found in every new MMO. These words disguise the grind needed to get a player cash shop items.

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    There is a PERCEPTION among the industry that F2P is the way to  go for new releases because of higher earning potential. IMO, multiple factors lead into that perception. Some of which may be more valid then others....

    - Some of the recent high profile sub-based games have NOT performed well financialy. Whether that performance really has very much to do with the payment model chosen for the game is irrelevent. Developers see those examples and thier perceptions are effected by them because they don't have much more of a crystal ball into what will make a successfull product then the rest of us do. However switching the payment model is the EASIEST and most defininitive change they can try to enact. Trying to make a product that is "good" or "enticing" or "attractive" enough to get a big sub-base is alot more ephemeral and hard to define/control then simply dictating a payment model.

    - With as many games as there are currently on the market and some of them very well entrenched it can be very difficult to attract new gamers to try a new product. Requiring payment up front is a barrier to entry for many folks so if Developers make the game free to play it lowers the barrier to entry and gets more users who might be willing to try the game and at least potentialy convert into customers.

    - With the RMT cash shop which is an integral part of the F2P model there is no upper limit to the amount they can get an individual to spend each month at least offering them the opportunity to get more money out of an individual user then the fixed fee models.

    - It's part of human nature that people will often be willing to spend in small but frequent payments what they would never tolerate in a single larger payment. Thus allowing the Developers to exploit the psychology associated with micro-transactions.

    - There are people who would legitimately be willing to spend SOMETHING on a game...say $5....that wouldn't be willing to pay the regular sub fee...by not offering an alternate payment model the Developer would loose all that potential business.

    - A larger user base simply LOOKS better from a PR standpoint when discussing a product with potential investors,  stockholders, etc...

    So there are alot of reasons why the F2P model looks attractive to Developers/Publishers. The one real danger in the model for them is that each USER of thier product is an actual operating COST to them as each user consumes a certain amount of resources (RAM, CPU, Storage, Bandwidth, etc) even though that cost may be relatively low on an individual basis. It's only by converting that user to a PAYING customer that they can operate at a proffit each month. If they aren't converting enough of thier FREE USERS into paying customers each month then they run the risk of operating at a loss even though they might have a huge user base. Additionaly they are subject to all the sorts of risks that any business which operates on tight margins are. The fixed payment model avoids that since you assure yourself that each user is producing more revenue then it costs to support in operating costs.

    The economics are what they are, despite my personal preferences as a gamer. However, it IS a mistake to believe that the F2P model alone is a silver bullet to financial success....it is getting hyped as that currently as it is a BUZZWORD for the industry....however like pretty much all BUZZWORDS in all industries, the truth is quite a bit different then the hype. There is no magic pixie dust for financial success.....you've still got to produce a decent enough product that enough people will want to pay something for and do all the things that any other business has to do (like watching budgets) in order to get a decent shot at success.

  • Superman0XSuperman0X San Jose, CAPosts: 1,581Member Uncommon

    Most (but not all) MMO's use the service model vs the sale model. The classic exception would be Guild Wars, which is classic P2P, with the box sale being the only revenue model used. Guild Wars 2 is a hybrid model, where they try to get additional revenue after the fact with microtransactions.

     

    The MAJOR advantage that F2P has over P2P is cost of aquisition. If players do not have to pay anything, they are more likley to try the game, than if they have to pay for it first. This lower cpa cost allows for the game to be marketted in a much cheaper, and more long term fashion. Word of mouth is more powerful, and even simple content updates become ways to bring in more players. This increase in the active playerbase, and very low cost of marketting allows for a lower cost per paying customer.

     

    Most (western) F2P games make their money with a monlthy sub. The same monthly sub that they would charge for P2P. However, by going F2P they have significantly lowered the marketting expense, and increased the margin per user. They can either take this as an immediate return or re-invest this to increase the amount of users fror better long turn profits.

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

    You should certainly expect more from a P2P MMO and in nearly all cases you get more. The GW2 cash shop issue was played down, cash shops always are made to sound much better than they turn out to be. Currently words along the line of "you can get anything in game that you can buy in the cash shop" are to be found in every new MMO. These words disguise the grind needed to get a player cash shop items.

    Only if you compare ONE p2p MMO to ONE f2P MMO. But i don't play ONE F2P MMOs. If you add them up, i got much more from F2P just because there are more of them, and one can hardly justify the value of subbing to more than one or two MMOs.

     

     

Sign In or Register to comment.