Originally posted by nariusseldon Average revenue per user (“ARPU”) was approximately $40 much higher than $27 reported in June."
Thank you for posting evidence which directly debunks your whales myth. Everyone is paying a lot more $ in F2P, lol. Fools and their money are soon parted. But consumers seem to be catching on.
Um no it doesn't.
The ARPU is the average, not the mode, not what most people pay. If one person out of 100 pays $1000 and 99 pay 0 the average rate per user is $10.
The mode, the data point (s) at which most people pay is not mentioned at all.
hmm so tell me why mode would be relevant? since mode will only be the most normal paying made it would be zero for the simple fact F2P games can't be used saying we have X accounts open on our games because for experience most people ahve more tehn one account to or dual box or a bank with they never spend a dime, in the same way if you ignore the non paying members that would amke teh whole thing useless.
so again why mode would be important? also it come to ask how they get the 40 average number? using playing members? paying only members? number of accounts? that is all tricks to make stocks look better then they should or companys showing they are lucrative but are bankrupt, same the other way.
only certain thing is when a game go F2P is becasue he pretty sure knows he can't charge for sub, tehn hit for F2P as a like the last run/ gas/ trying to save.
and considerating 3 new MMO to come will be Subs we can question this already
Did you just ask why the mode is relevant when discussing what most people are paying? The mode tells you what most people are paying.
If 99 people paid 0 dollars and 1 person paid $1000 the mod is 0 dollars, the mode is what most people people paid, the mode is the most common data point. The mode is the ONLY thing that can tell you what most people paid. Thats why it is relevant. If you want to know what MOST people paid, the MODE is the ONLY point that will tell you that.
It actually states how they got the $40 dollar. It is the ARPU, the Average Revenue per User. So yes they did count all the non paying as well. If they counted just the people paying they would have said the ARPPU, Average Revenue Per Paying User, that number would likely be higher than ARPU.
But the Average does not tell you want most people pay, the MODE tells you what most people pay. So you want to say say what most people paid, you have to have the mode.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
But that is not the point. The point is that sub-only MMOs are probably going to be dead soon.
They're getting a shot in the arm that people think is going to save P2P, like the last few times P2P games were released close to one another, then went F2P. We all know what's going to happen in a few year's time. Like hype, sub gamers never learn.
"Subscription based MMO revenues declined 9.0% on a monthly basis to $76.0 million. Subscriber base declined to 5.8 million from 6.3 million in June. This was much anticipated due to the loss of 600K subscribers for Activision’s World of Warcrafts (WoW) in the recently concluded quarter."
9% loss on a month basis ... it does not look good.
"Free-to-play subscriber base slightly declined to 45.8 million from 46 million in June. Average revenue per user (“ARPU”) was approximately $40 much higher than $27 reported in June."
Guess the whales are paying more.
But that is not the point. The point is that sub-only MMOs are probably going to be dead soon.
So the biggest game (by miles) is bleeding subs mostly due to the fact that its older than dirt and played to death, so happens to be a sub based game? Doesn't really prove just yet if subscription model is dead. Just proves people can look at the numbers and still come up wit the wrong (or at least unfounded) conclusions.
wtf, so the original post is comparing all of the free to play games vs WoW which has been out for almost 10 years now? Come on guys, this is retarded.
Yes, the original post takes differing data from a report where he is comparing F2P as a market (mobile, social, all non MMO games, MMO games) against subscription based MMOs which is a comparison that doesn't do anything.
Also that report never says if F2P MMOs are going up or down in revenue. So for instance we do not know if F2P MMOs also dropped in revenue, increased in revenue, or stayed the same.
In other words we know nothing of how one model in the MMO genre is doing vs the other model.
But that is not the point. The point is that sub-only MMOs are probably going to be dead soon.
They're getting a shot in the arm that people think is going to save P2P, like the last few times P2P games were released close to one another, then went F2P. We all know what's going to happen in a few year's time. Like hype, sub gamers never learn.
I Just wonder how many of those people that will only play the p2p games, and say that the upcoming three will save it are also willing to pay a p2p with a Cash Shop, because 2 of them will have it.
That just seems weird to me. Saying I won't play a f2p game because of possibility of p2w items, however I will pay $15/month for a game that has a cs and may have p2w items in the cs as well.
Paying more for the exact same possibility.
odd.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
So the biggest game (by miles) is bleeding subs mostly due to the fact that its older than dirt and played to death, so happens to be a sub based game? Doesn't really prove just yet if subscription model is dead. Just proves people can look at the numbers and still come up wit the wrong (or at least unfounded) conclusions.
Surely it does. It shows the market have no new-sub only game to replace this old game, at least not yet.
"Subscription based MMO revenues declined 9.0% on a monthly basis to $76.0 million. Subscriber base declined to 5.8 million from 6.3 million in June. This was much anticipated due to the loss of 600K subscribers for Activision’s World of Warcrafts (WoW) in the recently concluded quarter."
9% loss on a month basis ... it does not look good.
"Free-to-play subscriber base slightly declined to 45.8 million from 46 million in June. Average revenue per user (“ARPU”) was approximately $40 much higher than $27 reported in June."
Guess the whales are paying more.
But that is not the point. The point is that sub-only MMOs are probably going to be dead soon.
Doesn't a small decrease in total revenue but a large increase in per user revenue indicate a huge drop in the number of people playing F2P MMO's far greater than 9%? The way I read it F2P is increasingly depending on fewer and fewer wales to support the games. Not what I would call a sustainable strategy.
Overall it sounds like a large drop in the number of people playing any type of MMO with the two notable remaining P2P MMO's outpacing the F2P MMO's in player retention.
That just seems weird to me. Saying I won't play a f2p game because of possibility of p2w items, however I will pay $15/month for a game that has a cs and may have p2w items in the cs as well.
Paying more for the exact same possibility.
odd.
They will tell you everyone has different preferences, and why can't they have what they want ... even if what they want is to pay more to get fleeced by the same CS.
I say .. give it to them. They can have that .. just that i want no part.
But that is not the point. The point is that sub-only MMOs are probably going to be dead soon.
They're getting a shot in the arm that people think is going to save P2P, like the last few times P2P games were released close to one another, then went F2P. We all know what's going to happen in a few year's time. Like hype, sub gamers never learn.
When they start making innovated quality products again p2p will return. If they keep putting out cheap themepark clones with decades old gameplay formulas greedy, lazy developers and publishers really have no option. You can't sell a turd.
So the biggest game (by miles) is bleeding subs mostly due to the fact that its older than dirt and played to death, so happens to be a sub based game? Doesn't really prove just yet if subscription model is dead. Just proves people can look at the numbers and still come up wit the wrong (or at least unfounded) conclusions.
Surely it does. It shows the market have no new-sub only game to replace this old game, at least not yet.
Here's why it shows nothing as per my last post.
The study you linked two doesn't say if F2P MMOs are increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. So for all we know is the sub data could be an indicator of the MMO market as a whole declining, not just sub based MMOs. That is the problem with the data you are trying to use.
Overall it sounds like a large drop in the number of people playing any type of MMO with the two notable remaining P2P MMO's outpacing the F2P MMO's in player retention.
uh? P2P mmo drops more in players than F2P MMOs both in absolute numbers and in percentage.
P2P lost 500k (from 6.3 to 5.8M), and f2p lost 200k (from 46 to 45.8M) players.
So the biggest game (by miles) is bleeding subs mostly due to the fact that its older than dirt and played to death, so happens to be a sub based game? Doesn't really prove just yet if subscription model is dead. Just proves people can look at the numbers and still come up wit the wrong (or at least unfounded) conclusions.
Surely it does. It shows the market have no new-sub only game to replace this old game, at least not yet.
Here's why it shows nothing as per my last post.
The study you linked two doesn't say if F2P MMOs are increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. So for all we know is the sub data could be an indicator of the MMO market as a whole declining, not just sub based MMOs. That is the problem with the data you are trying to use.
Sure .. whole MMO market can be declining. If the MMO market is dead, sub-only MMO is also dead, wouldn't you agree?
And you did not read this?
""Free-to-play subscriber base slightly declined to 45.8 million from 46 million in June. Average revenue per user (“ARPU”) was approximately $40 much higher than $27 reported in June."
The sub market is totally skewed by wow where a jaded player based tied in with ancient avatars, years of achievments etc. take wow out of the picture and the sub market is on its deathbed (until they sub price comes down to a competitive price)
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by Bladestrom The sub market is totally skewed by wow where a jaded player based tied in with ancient avatars, years of achievments etc. take wow out of the picture and the sub market is on its deathbed (until they sub price comes down to a competitive price)
The sub market is only declining because the games created now do not support paying subs. Most sub games are older games with hooks. Causal single player MMO's that can be beaten faster than Skyrim are not going to get people sub long term.
"Subscription based MMO revenues declined 9.0% on a monthly basis to $76.0 million. Subscriber base declined to 5.8 million from 6.3 million in June. This was much anticipated due to the loss of 600K subscribers for Activision’s World of Warcrafts (WoW) in the recently concluded quarter."
9% loss on a month basis ... it does not look good.
"Free-to-play subscriber base slightly declined to 45.8 million from 46 million in June. Average revenue per user (“ARPU”) was approximately $40 much higher than $27 reported in June."
Guess the whales are paying more.
But that is not the point. The point is that sub-only MMOs are probably going to be dead soon.
red parts really tell the whole story that nariusseldon is trying to cover under a sensacionalistic thread title
sub based MMOs arent losing players. WoW is losing players
its evidenced in the way that 600k people were lost in WoW, and yet not even one of them apparently moved to F2Pgames.
many WoW players are NOT MMO players.
WoW is a social phenomenon. its a fad, it has always been since probably its 3rd month of existance. WoW is the facebook or the twitter of games. People play WoW not because they are interested in MMOs, hell, many of them probably arent even interested in WoW per se. But because they are interested in the social benefits of playing WoW with friends, co-workers, Schoolmates, roommates, bf/gf, son/daughter, etc etc etc.
all this article is saying is that apparently for a bunch of people, the boredom of playing WoW actually outweighed the social benefits they gained from playing it, and quit, not the game, but the GENRE ENTIRELY.
the fact that WoW is sub-based is annecdotical. That kind of people would have played it anyway. The long figth between F2P and P2P is alien to them, they wouldnt even care if trillions of better games were being given for free, or even that you got paid for playing them. F2P being an option, for better or worse, clearly wasnt the reason why they quitted wow. many of them probably dont even know or care that F2P actually exists.
all they know and care is that jimmy, timmy and johnnie are playing "that thing" and its "cool" so playing it "will make me cool too so I can talk with themk"...and after a while they drop off and go back to whetever they were doing, which certainly wasnt prying the market for the next F2P asian sensation that will last 6 months to 1 year before shutting down. probably timmy started getting interested in chicks and will draw the rest with him....
another thread full of half lies and non-truths from nariusseldon to prove (always without proving anything at all) that F2P > P2P
Whales are the ones supporting F2P when they get wise to being fleeced which over a course of time will happen won't the main revenue of these F2P games dry up ? How long can this go on before the bubble bursts ?
Also I am wary of putting my faith in whales who seem to be in my book anyway absolute morons who spend money like that, I mean clearly if these are the people you are depending on for the future of the genre. I fear for us all.
That is why the next three major AAA MMOs are all sub based: ESO, FF14, and WS..... Keep dreaming pal. Quality gaming is still going to require a sub.
I am not worried. They will go F2P sooner or later.
Plus, EQN is not going to be sub-only.
I want you to call Square-Enix and ask them if they will ever even consider F2P. I will laugh when I see the look on your face when they tell you to shove off. Just google Yoshi P's comments on FFXIV going F2P.
Anyway, are you opposed to sub games or something?
Hmm. with all the gloom and doom about the death of MMO's subscriptions If find it strange that hundreds of thousands of players are preordering Final Fantasy XIV... a subscription based MMO.....
Not to mention WildStar and TESO recent subscription announcements...
Familiar pattern isn't it, big corporat investment, fear of change, try to maximise profit over innovation- 2013 and still pumping a payment model that was used 10 years ago. can you imagine steam or apple pushing for sub games?
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by kitarad How long can this go on before the bubble bursts ?
in a certain way, the bubble bursted, but was inmediatly replaced with another bubble
or more accurately, the second bubble bursted the first, and took its place
historically, the first F2P MMOs worked under a fairly simple model
make a game for what amounted to be spare change. shitty engine, sloppy coding, tons of bugs, awful graphics, lame animations.
basically, make it CHEAP AS F..... then, proceed to tackle a predatory cash shop on it, while doing the bare MINIMUM to keep it running, no support whatsoever.
and they worked because of 2 reasons
1) because the competition was mostly P2P, so "HEY LOOK; FREE!!!" was a novelty bound to work
2) because the market was expanding faster than people realized the inherent evilness of the model.
imagine a snakes oil salesman that can only travel to the same 5 towns. after a while, everybody in that towns will know him and throw rocks at him on sight.
now imagine that new roads are being made constantly, and the same snake oil salesman can travel to more, and more, and more new towns full of people that know nothing of his broken morals...he doesnt need to rely on scamming people twice to make a profit....there are literally unlimited amounts of towns full of naive people waiting to be scammed.
this generated a long list of infamous publishers that basically got filthy rich operating in such a system. Aeria, GPotato, Webzen, Nexon, and many many more. This were publishers which could have portfolios as big as 20 games running at once, and not even all of them combined were worth a flying damn. they would keep throwing them into the market, waiting for one to make some impact and capture some whales, and that would be more than enough to make up for the other that were closing in the blink of an eye.
but....
before that point, P2P games that failed were simply shutting down
and then, someone, somewhere, had a genius idea..."hey, what if I switch my quality P2P game to F2P as a hail mary?"
and of course, from then on, the older F2P games started having the snowballs chance in hell of competing with that...
thats why some of the older, most renowned F2P publishers started losing market share, money, and actually a few of themhad to merge to survive, or plainly shut down entirely. others, the most finantially strong, started competing with the new rules of the market, and started developing quality games for a change.
of course, there are still certain regions of the planet, like india or china, where P2P markets cannot simply work due to a disproportionate difference of average renta per capita compared to the west, so F2P is still the only option available. some publishers still survive by clinging on to that markets by their fingernails, but are largely nonfactor in west anymore.
now, where is that second bubble I talked about at the start of this wall of text?
it lies in the fact that more and more quality games are turning F2P. actually some of them even start as F2P. and the market isnt growing exponentially anymore, actually its decreasing.
the old model cant apply here, because that games actully cost A LOT to be made. people dont want crap anymore, and wont stand crap either. they have been fed to expect better, they want good games, with decent support, and they want them free.
and soon, a bunch of devs are gonna see how they spend a AAA budget just to give their games for free, and then that games wont catch barely any attention from the whales. where in a P2P market they would have gotten some money out of the boxes and subs for a while,in a F2P game, chances are they will lose BOTH the money from developing an expensive game, and the ongoing costs associated from running the game for the 80% that doesnt pay a dime, failing to secure revenue from the 19% that do pay, and the 1% that pay LARGE.
and that devs are gonna fail
hardcore
and go bankrupt. REALLY bankrupt
the F2P model is inherently self-cannibalizing and non-sustainable long term. The more games are released into the market as F2P, the faster its reaching critical mass. people dont feel any commitment towars any game because they havent paid a dime for it. they are free to bounce from one to another at the drop of a hat. and they do
devs racing each others releasing better and better games and giving them more and more free, to meet the demands of the public, are acttually killing each other's long term success in the search for the quick buck, which is what the F2P model has always been about.
Whales are the ones supporting F2P when they get wise to being fleeced which over a course of time will happen won't the main revenue of these F2P games dry up ? How long can this go on before the bubble bursts ?
Also I am wary of putting my faith in whales who seem to be in my book anyway absolute morons who spend money like that, I mean clearly if these are the people you are depending on for the future of the genre. I fear for us all.
Don't know. But certainly i can enjoy it while it lasts.
No one says you have to depend on it forever. No game is fun forever anyway, and entertainment industry moves fast. I don't care what happen in 2 years in MMOs. I may not even be playing MMOs in 2 years.
Originally posted by Bladestrom Familiar pattern isn't it, big corporat investment, fear of change, try to maximise profit over innovation- 2013 and still pumping a payment model that was used 10 years ago. can you imagine steam or apple pushing for sub games?
Steam gets players to pay for the games in other ways.
Comments
Did you just ask why the mode is relevant when discussing what most people are paying? The mode tells you what most people are paying.
If 99 people paid 0 dollars and 1 person paid $1000 the mod is 0 dollars, the mode is what most people people paid, the mode is the most common data point. The mode is the ONLY thing that can tell you what most people paid. Thats why it is relevant. If you want to know what MOST people paid, the MODE is the ONLY point that will tell you that.
It actually states how they got the $40 dollar. It is the ARPU, the Average Revenue per User. So yes they did count all the non paying as well. If they counted just the people paying they would have said the ARPPU, Average Revenue Per Paying User, that number would likely be higher than ARPU.
But the Average does not tell you want most people pay, the MODE tells you what most people pay. So you want to say say what most people paid, you have to have the mode.
They're getting a shot in the arm that people think is going to save P2P, like the last few times P2P games were released close to one another, then went F2P. We all know what's going to happen in a few year's time. Like hype, sub gamers never learn.
So the biggest game (by miles) is bleeding subs mostly due to the fact that its older than dirt and played to death, so happens to be a sub based game? Doesn't really prove just yet if subscription model is dead. Just proves people can look at the numbers and still come up wit the wrong (or at least unfounded) conclusions.
Yes, the original post takes differing data from a report where he is comparing F2P as a market (mobile, social, all non MMO games, MMO games) against subscription based MMOs which is a comparison that doesn't do anything.
Also that report never says if F2P MMOs are going up or down in revenue. So for instance we do not know if F2P MMOs also dropped in revenue, increased in revenue, or stayed the same.
In other words we know nothing of how one model in the MMO genre is doing vs the other model.
I Just wonder how many of those people that will only play the p2p games, and say that the upcoming three will save it are also willing to pay a p2p with a Cash Shop, because 2 of them will have it.
That just seems weird to me. Saying I won't play a f2p game because of possibility of p2w items, however I will pay $15/month for a game that has a cs and may have p2w items in the cs as well.
Paying more for the exact same possibility.
odd.
Surely it does. It shows the market have no new-sub only game to replace this old game, at least not yet.
Doesn't a small decrease in total revenue but a large increase in per user revenue indicate a huge drop in the number of people playing F2P MMO's far greater than 9%? The way I read it F2P is increasingly depending on fewer and fewer wales to support the games. Not what I would call a sustainable strategy.
Overall it sounds like a large drop in the number of people playing any type of MMO with the two notable remaining P2P MMO's outpacing the F2P MMO's in player retention.
They will tell you everyone has different preferences, and why can't they have what they want ... even if what they want is to pay more to get fleeced by the same CS.
I say .. give it to them. They can have that .. just that i want no part.
When they start making innovated quality products again p2p will return. If they keep putting out cheap themepark clones with decades old gameplay formulas greedy, lazy developers and publishers really have no option. You can't sell a turd.
Life IS Feudal
Here's why it shows nothing as per my last post.
The study you linked two doesn't say if F2P MMOs are increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. So for all we know is the sub data could be an indicator of the MMO market as a whole declining, not just sub based MMOs. That is the problem with the data you are trying to use.
uh? P2P mmo drops more in players than F2P MMOs both in absolute numbers and in percentage.
P2P lost 500k (from 6.3 to 5.8M), and f2p lost 200k (from 46 to 45.8M) players.
Sure .. whole MMO market can be declining. If the MMO market is dead, sub-only MMO is also dead, wouldn't you agree?
And you did not read this?
""Free-to-play subscriber base slightly declined to 45.8 million from 46 million in June. Average revenue per user (“ARPU”) was approximately $40 much higher than $27 reported in June."
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
The sub market is only declining because the games created now do not support paying subs. Most sub games are older games with hooks. Causal single player MMO's that can be beaten faster than Skyrim are not going to get people sub long term.
red parts really tell the whole story that nariusseldon is trying to cover under a sensacionalistic thread title
sub based MMOs arent losing players. WoW is losing players
its evidenced in the way that 600k people were lost in WoW, and yet not even one of them apparently moved to F2Pgames.
many WoW players are NOT MMO players.
WoW is a social phenomenon. its a fad, it has always been since probably its 3rd month of existance. WoW is the facebook or the twitter of games. People play WoW not because they are interested in MMOs, hell, many of them probably arent even interested in WoW per se. But because they are interested in the social benefits of playing WoW with friends, co-workers, Schoolmates, roommates, bf/gf, son/daughter, etc etc etc.
all this article is saying is that apparently for a bunch of people, the boredom of playing WoW actually outweighed the social benefits they gained from playing it, and quit, not the game, but the GENRE ENTIRELY.
the fact that WoW is sub-based is annecdotical. That kind of people would have played it anyway. The long figth between F2P and P2P is alien to them, they wouldnt even care if trillions of better games were being given for free, or even that you got paid for playing them. F2P being an option, for better or worse, clearly wasnt the reason why they quitted wow. many of them probably dont even know or care that F2P actually exists.
all they know and care is that jimmy, timmy and johnnie are playing "that thing" and its "cool" so playing it "will make me cool too so I can talk with themk"...and after a while they drop off and go back to whetever they were doing, which certainly wasnt prying the market for the next F2P asian sensation that will last 6 months to 1 year before shutting down. probably timmy started getting interested in chicks and will draw the rest with him....
another thread full of half lies and non-truths from nariusseldon to prove (always without proving anything at all) that F2P > P2P
not surprising
Whales are the ones supporting F2P when they get wise to being fleeced which over a course of time will happen won't the main revenue of these F2P games dry up ? How long can this go on before the bubble bursts ?
Also I am wary of putting my faith in whales who seem to be in my book anyway absolute morons who spend money like that, I mean clearly if these are the people you are depending on for the future of the genre. I fear for us all.
I want you to call Square-Enix and ask them if they will ever even consider F2P. I will laugh when I see the look on your face when they tell you to shove off. Just google Yoshi P's comments on FFXIV going F2P.
Anyway, are you opposed to sub games or something?
Hmm. with all the gloom and doom about the death of MMO's subscriptions If find it strange that hundreds of thousands of players are preordering Final Fantasy XIV... a subscription based MMO.....
Not to mention WildStar and TESO recent subscription announcements...
I guess things aren't as dead as you imagined :P
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
in a certain way, the bubble bursted, but was inmediatly replaced with another bubble
or more accurately, the second bubble bursted the first, and took its place
historically, the first F2P MMOs worked under a fairly simple model
make a game for what amounted to be spare change. shitty engine, sloppy coding, tons of bugs, awful graphics, lame animations.
basically, make it CHEAP AS F..... then, proceed to tackle a predatory cash shop on it, while doing the bare MINIMUM to keep it running, no support whatsoever.
and they worked because of 2 reasons
1) because the competition was mostly P2P, so "HEY LOOK; FREE!!!" was a novelty bound to work
2) because the market was expanding faster than people realized the inherent evilness of the model.
imagine a snakes oil salesman that can only travel to the same 5 towns. after a while, everybody in that towns will know him and throw rocks at him on sight.
now imagine that new roads are being made constantly, and the same snake oil salesman can travel to more, and more, and more new towns full of people that know nothing of his broken morals...he doesnt need to rely on scamming people twice to make a profit....there are literally unlimited amounts of towns full of naive people waiting to be scammed.
this generated a long list of infamous publishers that basically got filthy rich operating in such a system. Aeria, GPotato, Webzen, Nexon, and many many more. This were publishers which could have portfolios as big as 20 games running at once, and not even all of them combined were worth a flying damn. they would keep throwing them into the market, waiting for one to make some impact and capture some whales, and that would be more than enough to make up for the other that were closing in the blink of an eye.
but....
before that point, P2P games that failed were simply shutting down
and then, someone, somewhere, had a genius idea..."hey, what if I switch my quality P2P game to F2P as a hail mary?"
and of course, from then on, the older F2P games started having the snowballs chance in hell of competing with that...
thats why some of the older, most renowned F2P publishers started losing market share, money, and actually a few of themhad to merge to survive, or plainly shut down entirely. others, the most finantially strong, started competing with the new rules of the market, and started developing quality games for a change.
of course, there are still certain regions of the planet, like india or china, where P2P markets cannot simply work due to a disproportionate difference of average renta per capita compared to the west, so F2P is still the only option available. some publishers still survive by clinging on to that markets by their fingernails, but are largely nonfactor in west anymore.
now, where is that second bubble I talked about at the start of this wall of text?
it lies in the fact that more and more quality games are turning F2P. actually some of them even start as F2P. and the market isnt growing exponentially anymore, actually its decreasing.
the old model cant apply here, because that games actully cost A LOT to be made. people dont want crap anymore, and wont stand crap either. they have been fed to expect better, they want good games, with decent support, and they want them free.
and soon, a bunch of devs are gonna see how they spend a AAA budget just to give their games for free, and then that games wont catch barely any attention from the whales. where in a P2P market they would have gotten some money out of the boxes and subs for a while,in a F2P game, chances are they will lose BOTH the money from developing an expensive game, and the ongoing costs associated from running the game for the 80% that doesnt pay a dime, failing to secure revenue from the 19% that do pay, and the 1% that pay LARGE.
and that devs are gonna fail
hardcore
and go bankrupt. REALLY bankrupt
the F2P model is inherently self-cannibalizing and non-sustainable long term. The more games are released into the market as F2P, the faster its reaching critical mass. people dont feel any commitment towars any game because they havent paid a dime for it. they are free to bounce from one to another at the drop of a hat. and they do
devs racing each others releasing better and better games and giving them more and more free, to meet the demands of the public, are acttually killing each other's long term success in the search for the quick buck, which is what the F2P model has always been about.
Cash shop MMO's don't release their earnings.
The data is incomplete.
Don't know. But certainly i can enjoy it while it lasts.
No one says you have to depend on it forever. No game is fun forever anyway, and entertainment industry moves fast. I don't care what happen in 2 years in MMOs. I may not even be playing MMOs in 2 years.
Steam gets players to pay for the games in other ways.
Apple, via it's hardware.
There's no free lunch.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.