I wouldnt put much stock in this info at all they are basing there information from the responses of less than 1% of the 160 million worlwide players ..33,000 people responded .. this info isnt gathered from publishers or developers .. just from 33,00 people that responded to them .. not much of a sample for anyone to take this seriously...
You have no clue about sampling, do you?
Politicians, the media, interests groups ... all take polls seriously and a poll in the US is done with mere thousands of people (much less than 33 thousands) to represent opinions of the whole country (300M .. way more than 160M).
In fact, i would say this info is great .. much better statistics and accuracy than political polls.
One major problem with the chart is it using every type of mmo on the market. Not the genre that this topic is in regards to.
In fact some of the comparisons verse subs dont even exist. i have not heard of any fps, shooter, real time strategy, turn based strategy,puzzle adventure game that even offers subs.
Its a chart used for purely pulling investors into the market. I wont get into the quality of their polling because it really doesn't apply here.
Originally posted by DihoruGotta say refreshing to see stats that cork the opinion holes of P2P die-hards. It just gets frustrating after a point for the continuing abuse lobbed at F2Pers by P2Pers when in the end F2P games earn more and P2P games are slowly becoming niche products (which isn't good or bad, it's how it is supposed to be, certain games need to be P2P but most do not and never will justify monthly costs, it has been like this since the post-WoW clone wars started and its refreshing to see that the trend is starting to show that most games should be built with F2P in mind from the get go).
This is only because P2P diehards are clueless.The vast majority of the revenue from F2P is from subs/timecards. F2P has pretty much always been about subs, but P2P diehards are mostly clueless about F2P, and just make up stuff that they think sounds good.
So, where does the "free" part of f2p come from? Obviously, a so-called f2p game has to MAKE MONEY in order to keep its doors open. So yes, they must be getting money somewhere. Doesn't that really make so-called f2p to really be P2P? Isn't f2p a mislabel that is used by marketing types to FOOL players into going through the ding joint so they SPEND money in the end.
Anyone want to start a betting pool on how long it will take narisseldon to respond to this post?
:-)
i am shocked that he has not already. how many more posts would it take? 15? XD
Actually i may have to post less in the next few days. I may have to go on a plane because of family stuff
Oh .. this one ... simple .. you guys can't guess that i am going to say "whales"?
When you compare P2P and F2P, this is how it works:
P2P
Pay for Game > Play Game > Determine if you like it
F2P
Play Game > Determine if you like it> Pay for Game
F2P is only 'free' in the essance that you get to play the game without paying. The usual method for monitization is to sell a sub with premium benefits, as well as some combination of items/services. There really isnt much a difference in where customers choose to spend the money. The most popular method is the monthly sub, but there is also a lot of people who like to buy items/services. This is why most modern games (both P2P and F2P) have both options.
The only reason that F2P makes more than P2P is because it removes the biggest reason that people dont play the game... the upfront cost. Most people are more than willing to pay for a game, once they have tried it out, and decided it was for them. However, there are a lot less people that are willing to pay to find out if the game is for them...
You forgot to mention
P2P>Players have more impact in a game's future via Sub>Generally better quality game>Equal footing for everyone>Less Hackers>Content/Game not aimed at nickle and diming you at every chance.> Bad Game dies and goes F2P;lacks promised game elements and not fun.
F2P>You do .1% damage against Cashshop player 53/1,000; Cashshop player 53/1,000 does 120% damage to you. You die.Non cashshop player 9,100/61,000 leaves game!
>Server merge! Transfers only $1.99>New item: Sword of $5.99 Slayer is introduced; Sword of $4.99 Slayer is no longer viable.
>Cashshop player 53/100 has left the game>Cashshop player 55/61 asks why "bugs from launch are still in the game 1 year later?".>New F2P game: "Microtransaction wars" has been released- Non cashshop player 114/2,000 has left the game!
>Cashshop player 12/12 asks on the forums "where has playerbase has gone?" Causal player responds: "Check this game microtransactions wars out! It now has more stuff we can buy from the cashshop. Don't mind the lacking content/feature list and the bugs; the game has only been released 1 year ago."
>Mmorpg Veteran ???/8,000,000: "You guys remember when games use to be good; like SWG and Uo and weren't built to be a living world with depth, rich features/content and you never got bored of it?
-----------------------
F2P games are just lame attempts at cash grabs and force the player to buy stuff to keep up. P2P players have more control over a game because they can refuse to pay for the game. Then if a game is bad; that game crashes and burns; going F2P. Catch the drift?
Now the problem with mmorpgs these days is; they all suck because they try to copy WoW's fluke success. The bored Veteran mmorpg players are tired of the WoW scene. So they try the new game that promises to revolutionize the genre, but it turns out to be another WoW clone with a different skin. Players want new experiences and using the same mold with a famous IP won't change that. WE WANT A GAME WE CAN CONTINUE TO PLAY FOR YEARS. THIS IS THE POINT TO MMORPGS. Othesewise we wouldn't be playing an mmo.
Sandbox mmorpgs are the what players(besides ultra causal/WoW fanboys) want and I believe to be the "king" in the future, or at least a hybrid sandbox-themepark mmorpg.Most casuals/themepark players keep saying "we view older games with rose tinted glasses", but that is far from the truth. We don't want archaic elements in the game like 2d graphics, horrible GUIs,unbalanced classes. I believe most people would prefer darkfall/Skyrim combat, but with old school sandbox elements such as fully custom housing.
The problem is we get dumbed down games where it tries to keep players; playing via a grind treadmill instead of the game's core being fun itself. I played Runescape off and on for 10 years because it was fun. Yes it had a massive grind and some things were tedious, but you could enjoy the game at any level.
More freedom, good core elements and plentiful features/conntent in a game=more success.
One thing that makes me curious I as many say there are more players playing games but almost all new games are free to play and what is a true subscriber? If you've logged in within 30 days even for 30 minutes or short term dabbles are you a sub in F2P?
I am really curious to see if newer games out pace in paying customers. I exclude WoW because its the exception and genre defining game.
Do F2P games make more per month per player or is it per payer then the P2P model?
Yeah. Gotta say it is bizarre to think Nariu is right about something.
Whales aren't magical things players believe in, it's a term used by developers as much as anything else, and tends to get referenced when a developer talks on the subject. Axehilt's platonic love, Raph Koster, for example.
Analytics like Playnomics have played a role in reaffirming that aw well.
And a while back another user linked us to this Gamasutra article.
You have a much more obvious offshoot now if you look at funding sites like Kickstarter. The fact you have $500+ tiers that people will buy into as backers for a game has a clear indication that there's a subset that's willing to pay in for good they won't even receive for an indefinite period of time.
EDIT: For clarification. It's true that no title, even F2P, stay afloat on nothing. Someone pays for that game to keep running.
The problem seems to be entirely semantic in that people are attacking the word 'free'. Yes, it's semantically true that a free to play game isn't properly free, because someone somewhere is paying for it. But that doesn't mean every person has to nor that every person is. On an individual user experience, a gamer can and frequently does benefit from what amounts to either free or exceptionally cheap play.
Good job, man!
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal One thing that makes me curious I as many say there are more players playing games but almost all new games are free to play and what is a true subscriber? If you've logged in within 30 days even for 30 minutes or short term dabbles are you a sub in F2P?
I am really curious to see if newer games out pace in paying customers. I exclude WoW because its the exception and genre defining game.
Do F2P games make more per month per player or is it per payer then the P2P model?
F2P measures subs the same way that P2P does... by the # of people that pay the monthly fee. Most games also measure things like Daily/Monthly Active Users and Conncurrent Connections.
F2P makes LESS per month per Active Player, but makes more overall, because of the increase in players. They also have a significantly lower marketing expense (so they keep more).
Yeah. Gotta say it is bizarre to think Nariu is right about something.
Whales aren't magical things players believe in, it's a term used by developers as much as anything else, and tends to get referenced when a developer talks on the subject. Axehilt's platonic love, Raph Koster, for example.
Yep, we all know they exist, my post was somewhat tongue in cheek, but the question is do they exist in any substantial numbers and what is the percentage of their spending vs the total aggregate small spenders?
Analytics like Playnomics have played a role in reaffirming that aw well.
Yeah, people are linking this all over the place, thing is, this isn't information gathered from reliable sources, their motives to collect the data and the motives of the respondents is questionable, and is typical of the "facts" people throw up about f2p models (and subs too for that matter). Where is the information drawn from actual MMO Dev companies? Top secret apparently.
And a while back another user linked us to this Gamasutra article.
Yes, yes, there are addicts in everything, and we've heard of people like this before, but that doesn't address the question, how many people are there really like this. It does raise another good question about whale behavior, how many are able to sustain it over the long term, or like most addicts do they eventually burn through their cash like this person and exit the market broke an beaten?
Oh wait, this is based upon the same questionable Playnomnics report that everyone keeps putting up as the definitive source. Just because it's the only material you can find doesn't make it true.
You have a much more obvious offshoot now if you look at funding sites like Kickstarter. The fact you have $500+ tiers that people will buy into as backers for a game has a clear indication that there's a subset that's willing to pay in for good they won't even receive for an indefinite period of time.
Actually, this is a good thought, I agree, this is one of the few places we can observe whales in their natural habitat. While I did see people buying 10K houses in the CU kickstart, I never did see a final breakdown that of the $2M+ that was raised, X percentage of the total funding came from the whales while the remainder came from the under $150 tier donaters. My questions, was, do such figures exist, even for kickstarters but keep in mind, since these are results of peopel willing to donate money to see a game built, it really isn't an apples to apples comparison. (More like an orange to tangerine maybe?)
EDIT: For clarification. It's true that no title, even F2P, stay afloat on nothing. Someone pays for that game to keep running.
Agreed, and I'm just trying to find out what percentage whales really contribute. So far outside of the single Playnomics source I haven't seen anything.
The problem seems to be entirely semantic in that people are attacking the word 'free'. Yes, it's semantically true that a free to play game isn't properly free, because someone somewhere is paying for it. But that doesn't mean every person has to nor that every person is. On an individual user experience, a gamer can and frequently does benefit from what amounts to either free or exceptionally cheap play.
I'm actually not trying to attack the F2P model, I just wonder if the small buyer actually pays more than what people think they do. (ignore those who pay nothing for the moment, they are not part of the discussion)
Just show me the numbers if you have them, my guess is they really don't exist and much of what is believed is based more on conjecture and legend than any hard data.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
P2P>Players have more impact in a game's future via Sub>Generally better quality game>Equal footing for everyone>Less Hackers>Content/Game not aimed at nickle and diming you at every chance.> Bad Game dies and goes F2P;lacks promised game elements and not fun.
F2P>You do .1% damage against Cashshop player 53/1,000; Cashshop player 53/1,000 does 120% damage to you. You die.Non cashshop player 9,100/61,000 leaves game!
>Server merge! Transfers only $1.99>New item: Sword of $5.99 Slayer is introduced; Sword of $4.99 Slayer is no longer viable.
>Cashshop player 53/100 has left the game>Cashshop player 55/61 asks why "bugs from launch are still in the game 1 year later?".>New F2P game: "Microtransaction wars" has been released- Non cashshop player 114/2,000 has left the game!
>Cashshop player 12/12 asks on the forums "where has playerbase has gone?" Causal player responds: "Check this game microtransactions wars out! It now has more stuff we can buy from the cashshop. Don't mind the lacking content/feature list and the bugs; the game has only been released 1 year ago."
>Mmorpg Veteran ???/8,000,000: "You guys remember when games use to be good; like SWG and Uo and weren't built to be a living world with depth, rich features/content and you never got bored of it?
-----------------------
F2P games are just lame attempts at cash grabs and force the player to buy stuff to keep up. P2P players have more control over a game because they can refuse to pay for the game. Then if a game is bad; that game crashes and burns; going F2P. Catch the drift?
Now the problem with mmorpgs these days is; they all suck because they try to copy WoW's fluke success. The bored Veteran mmorpg players are tired of the WoW scene. So they try the new game that promises to revolutionize the genre, but it turns out to be another WoW clone with a different skin. Players want new experiences and using the same mold with a famous IP won't change that. WE WANT A GAME WE CAN CONTINUE TO PLAY FOR YEARS. THIS IS THE POINT TO MMORPGS. Othesewise we wouldn't be playing an mmo.
Sandbox mmorpgs are the what players(besides ultra causal/WoW fanboys) want and I believe to be the "king" in the future, or at least a hybrid sandbox-themepark mmorpg.Most casuals/themepark players keep saying "we view older games with rose tinted glasses", but that is far from the truth. We don't want archaic elements in the game like 2d graphics, horrible GUIs,unbalanced classes. I believe most people would prefer darkfall/Skyrim combat, but with old school sandbox elements such as fully custom housing.
The problem is we get dumbed down games where it tries to keep players; playing via a grind treadmill instead of the game's core being fun itself. I played Runescape off and on for 10 years because it was fun. Yes it had a massive grind and some things were tedious, but you could enjoy the game at any level.
More freedom, good core elements and plentiful features/conntent in a game=more success.
It seems to me that your perception might be a tiny bit biased.... So lets try to stick to the facts.
P2P makes money up front. They take your money FIRST, then provide the product LATER. This is basically the definition of a cash grab. F2P asks for your money at a later date. They provide the product FIRST, then ask for payment LATER. As you can see this is the exact opposite of a cash grab.
As for the rest.. well it is mostly rhetoric. However, I do find it odd, that after all of this, you put forward Runescape (a F2P Game) as the example of a good game.
Is there any proof that whales really exist, or in any substantial numbers?
Is there any published information that game A has X number of whales who typically spend X number of dollars, perhaps broken down into tiers such as >10K, 5K- 10K, etc?
I'm starting to think they are more a thing of legend. I wonder how much their spending is compared to the under 10 buck a month club?
I'd post links but, truthfully, I don't think you guys really want answers. That could be the only possible reason why you ask the same questions over and over again about F2P and then, not only reject industry-accepted data sources for the information, but completely forget that the discussion even existed by the next thread.
Truthfully, I think you've got nothing. Or at least what you have are marketing studies based on samples, theories and conjectures, but hard data from the people who make these games I'm going to guess you can't come up with.
The fact you dismiss me by saying I'm rejecting "industry-accepted" data almost guarentees this. If the industry has proven anything, they certainly don't know how to recreate WOW, heck, they rarely can match EVE or the success of the earlier MMORPGs. So don't flout the industry prowess in front of me, I don't see much of it in the MMORPG space.
So if you have something. put it up, or point me to where it was posted previously. I suspect much like Devios links, they won't really provide what I was asking for, I don't think the information I am looking for really exists, or....if it does its not public knowledge and is something you have to pay a significant fee for.
I'm not trying to prove F2P is a bad model here, I'm trying to find out how real claims like Nairus makes that the whales fund his games is really true or not. No doubt they account for some percentage of the total revenue, lets say some survey states its around 33%, if that's the figure then great, means that 66% is funded by those willing to pay, just not pay a fortune.
It seems to me there are two opportunities for F2P game designers, one, add in incentives to encourage the non-payers to start paying, and they are the greatest segment of the player base, but might likely be very difficult to cross the line into the payer category. (see Narius for a great example, he's not paying, ever)
The other opportunity is to find ways to convince those who will pay (not the whales, they've proven they're marketable) to pay more.
Let's say that 66% of non whales currently averages less than 10.00 a month. It behooves the developer to find a way to encourage them to pay 20.00 a month, since they've already proven they're willing to pay, and are likely far easier to win over to paying more (if the value's there) than the totally F2P gamer.
Now if it turns out that whales account for 90% of the revenue, well than all decisions should be based on what they need and the F2Pers only given enough consideration to keep them playing (to provide entertainment for the paying customers) but outside of that their desires can largely be ignored.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'm actually not trying to attack the F2P model, I just wonder if the small buyer actually pays more than what people think they do. (ignore those who pay nothing for the moment, they are not part of the discussion)
Just show me the numbers if you have them, my guess is they really don't exist and much of what is believed is based more on conjecture and legend than any hard data.
(Western) F2P Games that have a subscription option make over half of the money via the subscription. However, when we look at the microtransactional model (for games that only have that, or games that have both) it is clear that large spenders (or whales) spend a disproportional amount of money. The reality is that the small buyer generally gravitates towards the subscription (which provdes them more value for thier limited funds), and that the large buyer generally gravitates towards microtransactions (which leverage their additional buying power). The reason that games want both systems, is because this basically doubles the revenue, for the same product.
It amazes me people can find extra cash to lavishly dump into the gaming world. After paying all my regular bills and the ever rising in increments internet bill I'm lucky if I can afford a frozen Banquet dinner.
Originally posted by Kyleran I'm actually not trying to attack the F2P model, I just wonder if the small buyer actually pays more than what people think they do. (ignore those who pay nothing for the moment, they are not part of the discussion)Just show me the numbers if you have them, my guess is they really don't exist and much of what is believed is based more on conjecture and legend than any hard data.
You're wrong about them not existing. Here's an article that centers around Whales, and their social habits, which includes an interview with one.
The article also brings up something that I haven't seen mentioned, which is the definition of whales. In social online games outside of Facebook, the whale could be a person who spends $100 or more. In Facebook games like Candy Crush, $25 would get you the title of whale.
Forbes has an article on the demographics of whales.
None of this tells us how much they support MMORPGs though. Suppose 2% to 5% of the population supports 25% of the revenue generated in a game. That still leaves 75% of the game's revenue to the rest of the players.
Honestly, I'm not sure why it matters that they exist. If they exist now, they've always existed. It doesn't answer whether or not MMORPGs are making more money now with more players.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Is there any proof that whales really exist, or in any substantial numbers?
Is there any published information that game A has X number of whales who typically spend X number of dollars, perhaps broken down into tiers such as >10K, 5K- 10K, etc?
I'm starting to think they are more a thing of legend. I wonder how much their spending is compared to the under 10 buck a month club?
I'd post links but, truthfully, I don't think you guys really want answers. That could be the only possible reason why you ask the same questions over and over again about F2P and then, not only reject industry-accepted data sources for the information, but completely forget that the discussion even existed by the next thread.
Truthfully, I think you've got nothing. Or at least what you have are marketing studies based on samples, theories and conjectures, but hard data from the people who make these games I'm going to guess you can't come up with.
Other than the Battlefield Heroes and Puzzle Pirates data that I have repeatedly posted over the past several years?
You guys really need to start researching stuff you want to discuss. Having to wade all the way back to the basics to explain the common knowledge stuff - stuff you should already know after four or so years of reading these posts - is a waste of everyone's time.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Is there any proof that whales really exist, or in any substantial numbers?
Is there any published information that game A has X number of whales who typically spend X number of dollars, perhaps broken down into tiers such as >10K, 5K- 10K, etc?
I'm starting to think they are more a thing of legend. I wonder how much their spending is compared to the under 10 buck a month club?
I'd post links but, truthfully, I don't think you guys really want answers. That could be the only possible reason why you ask the same questions over and over again about F2P and then, not only reject industry-accepted data sources for the information, but completely forget that the discussion even existed by the next thread.
Truthfully, I think you've got nothing. Or at least what you have are marketing studies based on samples, theories and conjectures, but hard data from the people who make these games I'm going to guess you can't come up with.
Other than the Battlefield Heroes and Puzzle Pirates data that I have repeatedly posted over the past several years?
You guys really need to start researching stuff you want to discuss. Having to wade all the way back to the basics to explain the common knowledge stuff - stuff you should already know after four or so years of reading these posts - is a waste of everyone's time.
I was right, you've got nothing, and decide to insult my researching skills to close the discussion. That's OK , we can end it here, perhaps someone else will find come up with something useful.
But seriously Puzzle Pirates and Battlefield Heroes, that's the best you've got?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I have often seen this claim made, here on these forums and all over the internet. It is very misleading.
What is usually meant is that the F2P games industry makes far more money than the P2P games industry IN TOTAL. No surprise there, you're comparing the earnings of a tiny handful of P2P games with those of literally 1000's of F2P games across all genres.
There are no apples-to-apples comparisons available. There are no game developers who are prepared to reveal the earnings of their individual games, at best they'll give percentage changes in earnings per period.
The only "reliable" and "widely quoted" (as opposed to "widely accepted") figures seem to be those produced by 3rd party companies who make their living selling "data, analysis and marketing strategies" to people who want a slice of this "multi-billion dollar F2P revenue opportunity". I smell snake-oil...
Even the pretty graphic used earlier in this thread was produced by GlobalCollect, a company that makes their money from... processing internet payments ! Would they lie about the numbers to boost their potential client list ? Noooooo.... of course not. But under close scrutiny by some auditors, they may admit to having made a few "honest mistakes" in their trends analysis, or perhaps an overly aggressive trend prediction or blah, blah, blah....
Originally posted by Jemcrystal It amazes me people can find extra cash to lavishly dump into the gaming world. After paying all my regular bills and the ever rising in increments internet bill I'm lucky if I can afford a frozen Banquet dinner.
Did you know that there were around 12 million millionaires in the world last year ?
Did you know 1.5% of adults in the US are millionaires ?
There are vastly more poor people in the world, but we never count them, because it's too expensive. And besides, nobody is going to pay you to count how many people they can't sell stuff to...
Originally posted by Jemcrystal It amazes me people can find extra cash to lavishly dump into the gaming world. After paying all my regular bills and the ever rising in increments internet bill I'm lucky if I can afford a frozen Banquet dinner.
Did you know that there were around 12 million millionaires in the world last year ?
Did you know 1.5% of adults in the US are millionaires ?
There are vastly more poor people in the world, but we never count them, because it's too expensive. And besides, nobody is going to pay you to count how many people they can't sell stuff to...
If game devs catered to that crowd, they wouldn't make any money, how does that help?
The only "reliable" and "widely quoted" (as opposed to "widely accepted") figures seem to be those produced by 3rd party companies who make their living selling "data, analysis and marketing strategies" to people who want a slice of this "multi-billion dollar F2P revenue opportunity". I smell snake-oil...
Even the pretty graphic used earlier in this thread was produced by GlobalCollect, a company that makes their money from... processing internet payments ! Would they lie about the numbers to boost their potential client list ? Noooooo.... of course not. But under close scrutiny by some auditors, they may admit to having made a few "honest mistakes" in their trends analysis, or perhaps an overly aggressive trend prediction or blah, blah, blah....
This isn't their first year producing those reports. If it was BS, the industry would have 1) called it out in the first year and 2) not continued buying it each year thereafter.
MMO developers don't live in a vaccuum. They use PlaySpan, GlobalCollect and other services, so they have their own data to compare with the data in the reports. Developers also *gasp* talk to one another and move around to different companies in the industry, which means devs are also able to compare data from one source to another. As a result, the industry knows how valid the data is and they are willing to pony up the tens of thousands of dollars to have these DFC, NewZoo, SuperData, etc reports.
So if the companies that contribute data to these reports are seeing the data as valid, continuing to buy the reports, and benefiting from the data, then maybe ... just maybe... they're valid info. But you don't want to believe that, so 'snake oil' is your only argument against it.
That's frustrating. It's frustrating because when one group of people refuses to accept anything other than what they already believe, little (if any) progress can be made in discussion on the topic.
Let's move past this ridiculous tinfoilhattery, please?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Jemcrystal It amazes me people can find extra cash to lavishly dump into the gaming world. After paying all my regular bills and the ever rising in increments internet bill I'm lucky if I can afford a frozen Banquet dinner.
Not everyone is you? Maybe we are, but I'm pretty sure we're not.
While I could spend a great deal more on gaming than I do, I'm not inclined to do so as I have other hobbies beyond gaming.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Lol, I do know a sickening amount of people were buying pretty ponies when Neverwinter first opened up. Seemed like ever 2 seconds someone was awarded one since they announced it.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Well I am trying to keep this clean. The focus of my post is really to gauge if there are really more paying customers now in MMORPGs then before. We know more players play now then before there is a bigger market and most MMORPGs are free. If we count the rumored 40% of the player base that P2P in F2P and compared it to the peaks of pre-WoW P2P games is there a drastic difference in paying customers? This is excluding WoW itself.
When do you count as before?
The original Everquest was probably the first big commercial MMORPG, others came before but they never got mainstream attention.
And EQ never had more then a million players.
There were other MMO's but they peaked at a few hundred thousand if they were lucky.
Then WoW came along and peaked at 12 million. Some simple math wll tell you that WoW didn't just take a large share of the pie, it enlarged the pie.
Believe it or not, when SWG launched people claimed that it could only canabalize SEO other games, that 1 million people was the max number of gamers and any new game would have to take gamers away from other games.
But there weren't 12 million MMO gamers BEFORE WoW. People who never played an MMO, played WoW.
Since then the market has grown, just see the number of listed game but no game has no come close to what WoW did, not even GW2.
You have to remember that WoW is near a decade old. Back then many people were still on dialup. EQ launched in a time when SOE didn't even think of the option to pay with anything else then a Credit Card.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Well I am trying to keep this clean. The focus of my post is really to gauge if there are really more paying customers now in MMORPGs then before. We know more players play now then before there is a bigger market and most MMORPGs are free. If we count the rumored 40% of the player base that P2P in F2P and compared it to the peaks of pre-WoW P2P games is there a drastic difference in paying customers? This is excluding WoW itself.
When do you count as before?
The original Everquest was probably the first big commercial MMORPG, others came before but they never got mainstream attention.
And EQ never had more then a million players.
There were other MMO's but they peaked at a few hundred thousand if they were lucky.
Then WoW came along and peaked at 12 million. Some simple math wll tell you that WoW didn't just take a large share of the pie, it enlarged the pie.
Believe it or not, when SWG launched people claimed that it could only canabalize SEO other games, that 1 million people was the max number of gamers and any new game would have to take gamers away from other games.
But there weren't 12 million MMO gamers BEFORE WoW. People who never played an MMO, played WoW.
Since then the market has grown, just see the number of listed game but no game has no come close to what WoW did, not even GW2.
You have to remember that WoW is near a decade old. Back then many people were still on dialup. EQ launched in a time when SOE didn't even think of the option to pay with anything else then a Credit Card.
It was a different age.
EQ's peak was below 450k subs. Which is less than EVE's current numbers. So EQ, the biggest of the time, is still less than EVE which is not the biggest of it's time. I'm not even sure where to rank EVE.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Lol, I do know a sickening amount of people were buying pretty ponies when Neverwinter first opened up. Seemed like ever 2 seconds someone was awarded one since they announced it.
Mounts and hats have massive appeal.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Lol, I do know a sickening amount of people were buying pretty ponies when Neverwinter first opened up. Seemed like ever 2 seconds someone was awarded one since they announced it.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Lol, I do know a sickening amount of people were buying pretty ponies when Neverwinter first opened up. Seemed like ever 2 seconds someone was awarded one since they announced it.
The difference there, is a very large percentage of people were buying that stuff with duped/exploit currency.
There was a HUGE exploit that Cryptic did not bother to fix for more than a month after it was reported, and it allow people to generate billions of astral diamonds. (Which were then converted into Zen and used to buy out the cash shop.)
It was pretty funny actually: you'd think a company would try to quickly fix a major exploit that was costing them money, but not Cryptic.
Pretty much says it all about Cryptic: they are too incompetent to even help themselves.
Comments
One major problem with the chart is it using every type of mmo on the market. Not the genre that this topic is in regards to.
In fact some of the comparisons verse subs dont even exist. i have not heard of any fps, shooter, real time strategy, turn based strategy,puzzle adventure game that even offers subs.
Its a chart used for purely pulling investors into the market. I wont get into the quality of their polling because it really doesn't apply here.
You forgot to mention
P2P>Players have more impact in a game's future via Sub>Generally better quality game>Equal footing for everyone>Less Hackers>Content/Game not aimed at nickle and diming you at every chance.> Bad Game dies and goes F2P;lacks promised game elements and not fun.
F2P>You do .1% damage against Cashshop player 53/1,000; Cashshop player 53/1,000 does 120% damage to you. You die.Non cashshop player 9,100/61,000 leaves game!
>Server merge! Transfers only $1.99>New item: Sword of $5.99 Slayer is introduced; Sword of $4.99 Slayer is no longer viable.
>Cashshop player 53/100 has left the game>Cashshop player 55/61 asks why "bugs from launch are still in the game 1 year later?".> New F2P game: "Microtransaction wars" has been released- Non cashshop player 114/2,000 has left the game!
> Cashshop player 12/12 asks on the forums "where has playerbase has gone?" Causal player responds: "Check this game microtransactions wars out! It now has more stuff we can buy from the cashshop. Don't mind the lacking content/feature list and the bugs; the game has only been released 1 year ago."
>Mmorpg Veteran ???/8,000,000: "You guys remember when games use to be good; like SWG and Uo and weren't built to be a living world with depth, rich features/content and you never got bored of it?
-----------------------
F2P games are just lame attempts at cash grabs and force the player to buy stuff to keep up. P2P players have more control over a game because they can refuse to pay for the game. Then if a game is bad; that game crashes and burns; going F2P. Catch the drift?
Now the problem with mmorpgs these days is; they all suck because they try to copy WoW's fluke success. The bored Veteran mmorpg players are tired of the WoW scene. So they try the new game that promises to revolutionize the genre, but it turns out to be another WoW clone with a different skin. Players want new experiences and using the same mold with a famous IP won't change that. WE WANT A GAME WE CAN CONTINUE TO PLAY FOR YEARS. THIS IS THE POINT TO MMORPGS. Othesewise we wouldn't be playing an mmo.
Sandbox mmorpgs are the what players(besides ultra causal/WoW fanboys) want and I believe to be the "king" in the future, or at least a hybrid sandbox-themepark mmorpg.Most casuals/themepark players keep saying "we view older games with rose tinted glasses", but that is far from the truth. We don't want archaic elements in the game like 2d graphics, horrible GUIs,unbalanced classes. I believe most people would prefer darkfall/Skyrim combat, but with old school sandbox elements such as fully custom housing.
The problem is we get dumbed down games where it tries to keep players; playing via a grind treadmill instead of the game's core being fun itself. I played Runescape off and on for 10 years because it was fun. Yes it had a massive grind and some things were tedious, but you could enjoy the game at any level.
More freedom, good core elements and plentiful features/conntent in a game=more success.
MurderHerd
I am really curious to see if newer games out pace in paying customers. I exclude WoW because its the exception and genre defining game.
Do F2P games make more per month per player or is it per payer then the P2P model?
Good job, man!
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
F2P measures subs the same way that P2P does... by the # of people that pay the monthly fee. Most games also measure things like Daily/Monthly Active Users and Conncurrent Connections.
F2P makes LESS per month per Active Player, but makes more overall, because of the increase in players. They also have a significantly lower marketing expense (so they keep more).
I'm actually not trying to attack the F2P model, I just wonder if the small buyer actually pays more than what people think they do. (ignore those who pay nothing for the moment, they are not part of the discussion)
Just show me the numbers if you have them, my guess is they really don't exist and much of what is believed is based more on conjecture and legend than any hard data.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It seems to me that your perception might be a tiny bit biased.... So lets try to stick to the facts.
P2P makes money up front. They take your money FIRST, then provide the product LATER. This is basically the definition of a cash grab. F2P asks for your money at a later date. They provide the product FIRST, then ask for payment LATER. As you can see this is the exact opposite of a cash grab.
As for the rest.. well it is mostly rhetoric. However, I do find it odd, that after all of this, you put forward Runescape (a F2P Game) as the example of a good game.
Truthfully, I think you've got nothing. Or at least what you have are marketing studies based on samples, theories and conjectures, but hard data from the people who make these games I'm going to guess you can't come up with.
The fact you dismiss me by saying I'm rejecting "industry-accepted" data almost guarentees this. If the industry has proven anything, they certainly don't know how to recreate WOW, heck, they rarely can match EVE or the success of the earlier MMORPGs. So don't flout the industry prowess in front of me, I don't see much of it in the MMORPG space.
So if you have something. put it up, or point me to where it was posted previously. I suspect much like Devios links, they won't really provide what I was asking for, I don't think the information I am looking for really exists, or....if it does its not public knowledge and is something you have to pay a significant fee for.
I'm not trying to prove F2P is a bad model here, I'm trying to find out how real claims like Nairus makes that the whales fund his games is really true or not. No doubt they account for some percentage of the total revenue, lets say some survey states its around 33%, if that's the figure then great, means that 66% is funded by those willing to pay, just not pay a fortune.
It seems to me there are two opportunities for F2P game designers, one, add in incentives to encourage the non-payers to start paying, and they are the greatest segment of the player base, but might likely be very difficult to cross the line into the payer category. (see Narius for a great example, he's not paying, ever)
The other opportunity is to find ways to convince those who will pay (not the whales, they've proven they're marketable) to pay more.
Let's say that 66% of non whales currently averages less than 10.00 a month. It behooves the developer to find a way to encourage them to pay 20.00 a month, since they've already proven they're willing to pay, and are likely far easier to win over to paying more (if the value's there) than the totally F2P gamer.
Now if it turns out that whales account for 90% of the revenue, well than all decisions should be based on what they need and the F2Pers only given enough consideration to keep them playing (to provide entertainment for the paying customers) but outside of that their desires can largely be ignored.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
(Western) F2P Games that have a subscription option make over half of the money via the subscription. However, when we look at the microtransactional model (for games that only have that, or games that have both) it is clear that large spenders (or whales) spend a disproportional amount of money. The reality is that the small buyer generally gravitates towards the subscription (which provdes them more value for thier limited funds), and that the large buyer generally gravitates towards microtransactions (which leverage their additional buying power). The reason that games want both systems, is because this basically doubles the revenue, for the same product.
You're wrong about them not existing. Here's an article that centers around Whales, and their social habits, which includes an interview with one.
http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/whales-and-why-social-gamers-are-just-gamers/
The article also brings up something that I haven't seen mentioned, which is the definition of whales. In social online games outside of Facebook, the whale could be a person who spends $100 or more. In Facebook games like Candy Crush, $25 would get you the title of whale.
Forbes has an article on the demographics of whales.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/08/28/mobile-gamings-whales-overwhelmingly-male-spend-big-on-all-types-of-video-games/
Here's an article from Kotaku on just who these whales are.
http://kotaku.com/who-are-the-whales-driving-free-to-play-gaming-youd-1197333118
The Kotaku article references a study on the demographics of whales, probably the same one that Forbes references.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-08-22-two-thirds-of-whales-are-males
None of this tells us how much they support MMORPGs though. Suppose 2% to 5% of the population supports 25% of the revenue generated in a game. That still leaves 75% of the game's revenue to the rest of the players.
Honestly, I'm not sure why it matters that they exist. If they exist now, they've always existed. It doesn't answer whether or not MMORPGs are making more money now with more players.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Other than the Battlefield Heroes and Puzzle Pirates data that I have repeatedly posted over the past several years?
You guys really need to start researching stuff you want to discuss. Having to wade all the way back to the basics to explain the common knowledge stuff - stuff you should already know after four or so years of reading these posts - is a waste of everyone's time.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I was right, you've got nothing, and decide to insult my researching skills to close the discussion. That's OK , we can end it here, perhaps someone else will find come up with something useful.
But seriously Puzzle Pirates and Battlefield Heroes, that's the best you've got?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"F2P games make far more money than P2P games"
I have often seen this claim made, here on these forums and all over the internet. It is very misleading.
What is usually meant is that the F2P games industry makes far more money than the P2P games industry IN TOTAL. No surprise there, you're comparing the earnings of a tiny handful of P2P games with those of literally 1000's of F2P games across all genres.
There are no apples-to-apples comparisons available. There are no game developers who are prepared to reveal the earnings of their individual games, at best they'll give percentage changes in earnings per period.
The only "reliable" and "widely quoted" (as opposed to "widely accepted") figures seem to be those produced by 3rd party companies who make their living selling "data, analysis and marketing strategies" to people who want a slice of this "multi-billion dollar F2P revenue opportunity". I smell snake-oil...
Even the pretty graphic used earlier in this thread was produced by GlobalCollect, a company that makes their money from... processing internet payments ! Would they lie about the numbers to boost their potential client list ? Noooooo.... of course not. But under close scrutiny by some auditors, they may admit to having made a few "honest mistakes" in their trends analysis, or perhaps an overly aggressive trend prediction or blah, blah, blah....
Did you know that there were around 12 million millionaires in the world last year ?
Did you know 1.5% of adults in the US are millionaires ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/expat-money/10158420/A-record-breaking-number-of-millionaires-in-the-world.html
There are vastly more poor people in the world, but we never count them, because it's too expensive. And besides, nobody is going to pay you to count how many people they can't sell stuff to...
If game devs catered to that crowd, they wouldn't make any money, how does that help?
No money means no game, its that easy
This isn't their first year producing those reports. If it was BS, the industry would have 1) called it out in the first year and 2) not continued buying it each year thereafter.
MMO developers don't live in a vaccuum. They use PlaySpan, GlobalCollect and other services, so they have their own data to compare with the data in the reports. Developers also *gasp* talk to one another and move around to different companies in the industry, which means devs are also able to compare data from one source to another. As a result, the industry knows how valid the data is and they are willing to pony up the tens of thousands of dollars to have these DFC, NewZoo, SuperData, etc reports.
So if the companies that contribute data to these reports are seeing the data as valid, continuing to buy the reports, and benefiting from the data, then maybe ... just maybe... they're valid info. But you don't want to believe that, so 'snake oil' is your only argument against it.
That's frustrating. It's frustrating because when one group of people refuses to accept anything other than what they already believe, little (if any) progress can be made in discussion on the topic.
Let's move past this ridiculous tinfoilhattery, please?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Not everyone is you? Maybe we are, but I'm pretty sure we're not.
While I could spend a great deal more on gaming than I do, I'm not inclined to do so as I have other hobbies beyond gaming.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
When do you count as before?
The original Everquest was probably the first big commercial MMORPG, others came before but they never got mainstream attention.
And EQ never had more then a million players.
There were other MMO's but they peaked at a few hundred thousand if they were lucky.
Then WoW came along and peaked at 12 million. Some simple math wll tell you that WoW didn't just take a large share of the pie, it enlarged the pie.
Believe it or not, when SWG launched people claimed that it could only canabalize SEO other games, that 1 million people was the max number of gamers and any new game would have to take gamers away from other games.
But there weren't 12 million MMO gamers BEFORE WoW. People who never played an MMO, played WoW.
Since then the market has grown, just see the number of listed game but no game has no come close to what WoW did, not even GW2.
You have to remember that WoW is near a decade old. Back then many people were still on dialup. EQ launched in a time when SOE didn't even think of the option to pay with anything else then a Credit Card.
It was a different age.
EQ's peak was below 450k subs. Which is less than EVE's current numbers. So EQ, the biggest of the time, is still less than EVE which is not the biggest of it's time. I'm not even sure where to rank EVE.
Mounts and hats have massive appeal.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The difference there, is a very large percentage of people were buying that stuff with duped/exploit currency.
There was a HUGE exploit that Cryptic did not bother to fix for more than a month after it was reported, and it allow people to generate billions of astral diamonds. (Which were then converted into Zen and used to buy out the cash shop.)
It was pretty funny actually: you'd think a company would try to quickly fix a major exploit that was costing them money, but not Cryptic.
Pretty much says it all about Cryptic: they are too incompetent to even help themselves.