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!

f2p projected to be $2.5B market in 2013

1234568

Comments

  • SukiyakiSukiyaki GreenwichPosts: 1,398Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by SpottyGekko

    Pffffttt... $2.5B ? That's peanuts !

     

    According to Newzoo, the global MMO market will be worth $14.9B in 2013 !

     

    Soooo... if SuperData is claiming that the F2P gaming industry in total will be worth $2.5B (projected) in 2013, does that mean the subscription MMO market will be worth $12.5B in 2013 ? image

     

    Damn these stupid predictions, eh ?

     

     

    ITT

    U.S.A = entire total global world market and industry

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,204Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sukiyaki
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Does anyone else think 2.5 billion is a surprisingly small portion of the market? Blizzard's net revenues for 2012 was 4.86 billion. It's an apples and oranges comparison but one Corporation's net dwarfs the entire free to play market segment.

    Some context , full information and correct information please.

    US$ 2.5B refers to the U.S. F2P MMO market revenues not the entire market.

    US$4.68 refers to the global all pricmodel all genres ActivisionBlizzard net revenues.

     

    That was was more like a pumpkins vs. peanuts comparison.

    Yes, that was really my point. zymurgeist was using the entire Blizzard revenue stream as an example of subscription revenues when most of that revenue was from their non-subscription sources.

    Like I pointed out in an earlier post, at the very best, the most WoW would bring in would be approximately $120M per month or $1.4Bn annually. The actual revenue is likely nowhere near that.

    I think the amalgamated data at newzoo is really more interesting because it shows how publishers are doing in relation with each other combining their total sales strategy (subscription, box fee, F2P, etc). Here we like to think in terms of p2p versus f2p, but most publishers seem to have a variety of revenue strategies that include some subscription, non-subscription, and box-fee only revenue streams.

    Using Blizzard is actually a good argument against subscriptions being dominant because their sub revenues are continuing to decline while their non sub revenues like Skylanders and D3 continue to soar. Skylanders was only projected to bring in about $500M overall, but has grossed over $1Bn. That's pretty amazing. It also shows how complex revenue models and strategies are. There is no "p2p" and "f2p". It is a complicated mix to try and squeeze as much money out of us as possible.

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

    Using Blizzard is actually a good argument against subscriptions being dominant because their sub revenues are continuing to decline while their non sub revenues like Skylanders and D3 continue to soar. Skylanders was only projected to bring in about $500M overall, but has grossed over $1Bn. That's pretty amazing. It also shows how complex revenue models and strategies are. There is no "p2p" and "f2p". It is a complicated mix to try and squeeze as much money out of us as possible.

    And the next Blizz game, Hearthstone, is going to be F2P. There is even rumour that WOW will have a cash shop, and if that is the case, f2P is not far away.

    It is quote clear that sub-only is losing ground, but what is replacing it, is a mixture of things, as you said.

     

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,211Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by Sukiyaki
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Does anyone else think 2.5 billion is a surprisingly small portion of the market? Blizzard's net revenues for 2012 was 4.86 billion. It's an apples and oranges comparison but one Corporation's net dwarfs the entire free to play market segment.

    Some context , full information and correct information please.

    US$ 2.5B refers to the U.S. F2P MMO market revenues not the entire market.

    US$4.68 refers to the global all pricmodel all genres ActivisionBlizzard net revenues.

     

    That was was more like a pumpkins vs. peanuts comparison.

    Yes, that was really my point. zymurgeist was using the entire Blizzard revenue stream as an example of subscription revenues when most of that revenue was from their non-subscription sources.

    Like I pointed out in an earlier post, at the very best, the most WoW would bring in would be approximately $120M per month or $1.4Bn annually. The actual revenue is likely nowhere near that.

    I think the amalgamated data at newzoo is really more interesting because it shows how publishers are doing in relation with each other combining their total sales strategy (subscription, box fee, F2P, etc). Here we like to think in terms of p2p versus f2p, but most publishers seem to have a variety of revenue strategies that include some subscription, non-subscription, and box-fee only revenue streams.

    Using Blizzard is actually a good argument against subscriptions being dominant because their sub revenues are continuing to decline while their non sub revenues like Skylanders and D3 continue to soar. Skylanders was only projected to bring in about $500M overall, but has grossed over $1Bn. That's pretty amazing. It also shows how complex revenue models and strategies are. There is no "p2p" and "f2p". It is a complicated mix to try and squeeze as much money out of us as possible.

    It's not an argument that subscriptions are dominant. It's an argument that 2.5 billion a year from F2P is does not in any way signify anything other than it's a surprisingly small number. If you're digging for a deeper meaning you're wasting your time.  

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,204Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by zymurgeist

    It's not an argument that subscriptions are dominant. It's an argument that 2.5 billion a year from F2P is does not in any way signify anything other than it's a surprisingly small number. If you're digging for a deeper meaning you're wasting your time.  

    A surprisingly small number compared to what? It's likely over twice as much as the most successful MMO in history. There is CCP with EVE that isn't even on that list and there is NCSoft down in the mid 20s with a total revenue of just under $900M and only one wildly successful subscription game (Lineage).

    I'm don't see where you're getting the surprisingly small number in your argument.

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member
    Originally posted by zymurgeist

    It's not an argument that subscriptions are dominant. It's an argument that 2.5 billion a year from F2P is does not in any way signify anything other than it's a surprisingly small number. If you're digging for a deeper meaning you're wasting your time.  

    If you remove wow from the sub numbers what do you think they look like ?

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Chicago, ILPosts: 906Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by FinalFikus
    If 48 million people play f2p, and let's say 10% of them pay an average of 26 dollars a month, where does the 2.5 billion number come from?

     

    Or what's 2.5 billion divided by the total f2p audience which this article says 48 million or so? I still don't see how they arrived at these numbers. Any math wizards out there know how they do this?



    If you're going to assume numbers that don't add up, how can anyone possibly reconcile your numbers with theirs?

    Of course you can't see how they did this. They have access to information that you don't have, and you don't believe what they are saying, so nothing you imagine would add up to what they are saying.

    **

    Audience is 46.8M people. Assume 10% are paying $26 a month. That means each month they are collecting $119,600,000. That brings the total per year to $1.4B. If we assume between 15% and 20% of people are actually paying instead of 10%, then we arrive at $2.5B. You need some justification for your 10% assumption to say they are flubbing their numbers.

    The final note here is that the projection is for 2013, which isn't over yet. They are assuming some sort of trend in the number of players. The dollars paid per playing player has remained constant, so they are assuming either the number of players will remain constant 'til year's end, or they are assuming that the number of players will continue to rise 'til year's end. Since we don't have all the information, it's hard to say which assumption they are using.

     

    Right on. Was just looking for some math. Thank you sir.

    Of coarse it will rise as p2p switch to free to play, and I'd bet a case of beer taxation will be the next trend once p2p has been surrendered completely.

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Chicago, ILPosts: 906Member
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by zymurgeist

    It's not an argument that subscriptions are dominant. It's an argument that 2.5 billion a year from F2P is does not in any way signify anything other than it's a surprisingly small number. If you're digging for a deeper meaning you're wasting your time.  

    If you remove wow from the sub numbers what do you think they look like ?

    If you compare the top 5 p2p to the top 5 free2play what changes?

    I wonder what B2P games with online play without extra cost are included. Games like GTA and COD, minecraft and madden?

    I bet the 100 games on my phone are included though, and they're not even really multiplayer.

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member
    Originally posted by FinalFikus

    Right on. Was just looking for some math. Thank you sir.

    Of coarse it will rise as p2p switch to free to play, and I'd bet a case of beer taxation will be the next trend once p2p has been surrendered completely.

    It's hard to tax an international market. And doing it to microtrasactions would be a nightmare. 2.4 billion sounds like lots of money but it is coming from an international market that buys only a few dollars worth at a time ( mostly ) it would probably cost more to get it than it would be worth.

    I think internet gambling showed the tax man what a waste of time it is to chase after that dollar. Servers can be put anywhere.

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Chicago, ILPosts: 906Member
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by FinalFikus

    Right on. Was just looking for some math. Thank you sir.

    Of coarse it will rise as p2p switch to free to play, and I'd bet a case of beer taxation will be the next trend once p2p has been surrendered completely.

    It's hard to tax an international market. And doing it to microtrasactions would be a nightmare. 2.4 billion sounds like lots of money but it is coming from an international market that buys only a few dollars worth at a time ( mostly ) it would probably cost more to get it than it would be worth.

    I think internet gambling showed the tax man what a waste of time it is to chase after that dollar. Servers can be put anywhere.

    A case of beer then? It's a bet.

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,211Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by zymurgeist

    It's not an argument that subscriptions are dominant. It's an argument that 2.5 billion a year from F2P is does not in any way signify anything other than it's a surprisingly small number. If you're digging for a deeper meaning you're wasting your time.  

    A surprisingly small number compared to what? It's likely over twice as much as the most successful MMO in history. There is CCP with EVE that isn't even on that list and there is NCSoft down in the mid 20s with a total revenue of just under $900M and only one wildly successful subscription game (Lineage).

    I'm don't see where you're getting the surprisingly small number in your argument.

    Compared to what one would expect from all the drama. It's a small segment of a small part of the gaming business. Angry Birds probably grossed that much selling T-shirts.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member
    Originally posted by FinalFikus
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by FinalFikus

    Right on. Was just looking for some math. Thank you sir.

    Of coarse it will rise as p2p switch to free to play, and I'd bet a case of beer taxation will be the next trend once p2p has been surrendered completely.

    It's hard to tax an international market. And doing it to microtrasactions would be a nightmare. 2.4 billion sounds like lots of money but it is coming from an international market that buys only a few dollars worth at a time ( mostly ) it would probably cost more to get it than it would be worth.

    I think internet gambling showed the tax man what a waste of time it is to chase after that dollar. Servers can be put anywhere.

    A case of beer then? It's a bet.

    Not if you call that 2.5% swill you drink, beer.

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Chicago, ILPosts: 906Member
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by FinalFikus
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by FinalFikus

    Right on. Was just looking for some math. Thank you sir.

    Of coarse it will rise as p2p switch to free to play, and I'd bet a case of beer taxation will be the next trend once p2p has been surrendered completely.

    It's hard to tax an international market. And doing it to microtrasactions would be a nightmare. 2.4 billion sounds like lots of money but it is coming from an international market that buys only a few dollars worth at a time ( mostly ) it would probably cost more to get it than it would be worth.

    I think internet gambling showed the tax man what a waste of time it is to chase after that dollar. Servers can be put anywhere.

    A case of beer then? It's a bet.

    Not if you call that 2.5% swill you drink, beer.

    If they can call LOL an mmo, I can call that beer!!

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Chicago, ILPosts: 906Member

    GTA5 reached a billion in revenue in 3 days. A bunch a world records too.

    And with a virtual world with the game built around it, which as we all know from our experts, is a recipe for a tiny customer base that is undeserving of any funding what-so-ever. Unless you only want 5-10k players. Skyrim only confirms that no one wants the V. WOrld with a game.

    I see other trends besides F2P, but that's me.

     

    I wonder if the 46 million x-box live subscribers, half of which pay for gold membership, are ignored?

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • Atis-nobAtis-nob BasementDwellTownPosts: 94Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Atis-nob

    It matters for those who are here to discuss things, since it spoils providing examples. Its annoying to dig through all irrelevant examples, bringed in on basis that "some ad-person calls this game MMO". If we start using term "MMO" for non-MMOs, this means we need new term for actual MMOs and its too time-consuming to find a word which all MMO players would agree on. Feeding ppl, using term in wrong way, with crap seems much more effective solution.

    The industry already uses the term MMO for games like LoL. It is just a convenient label to me. I will use it as such.

    Arguing is not going to change how others are using it. You already said it "find a word which all MMO players would agree on" because they can''t even agree on what the word refers to now.

    You are better off trying to find a new term (virtual world games?) and make it stick.

    Advertisement industry always uses some buzzwords irrespective of their actual meaning, and most of time these words doesn't stick. MMO players are already agreed on using MMO for MMO, good enough for me. For lol we have "online game". I dont see much misuse of MMO term in interviews/blogs with actual developers or gamers.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,656Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by FinalFikus

    GTA5 reached a billion in revenue in 3 days. A bunch a world records too.

    And with a virtual world with the game built around it, which as we all know from our experts, is a recipe for a tiny customer base when expanded to a massively multiplayer platform...

    If you're going to be snarky about the stance of others, you might as well as least get it right. ;) 

    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

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Atis-nob
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Atis-nob

    It matters for those who are here to discuss things, since it spoils providing examples. Its annoying to dig through all irrelevant examples, bringed in on basis that "some ad-person calls this game MMO". If we start using term "MMO" for non-MMOs, this means we need new term for actual MMOs and its too time-consuming to find a word which all MMO players would agree on. Feeding ppl, using term in wrong way, with crap seems much more effective solution.

    The industry already uses the term MMO for games like LoL. It is just a convenient label to me. I will use it as such.

    Arguing is not going to change how others are using it. You already said it "find a word which all MMO players would agree on" because they can''t even agree on what the word refers to now.

    You are better off trying to find a new term (virtual world games?) and make it stick.

    Advertisement industry always uses some buzzwords irrespective of their actual meaning, and most of time these words doesn't stick. MMO players are already agreed on using MMO for MMO, good enough for me. For lol we have "online game". I dont see much misuse of MMO term in interviews/blogs with actual developers or gamers.

    Industry analytics firm classify LoL as a MMO. Even this site has it under the "MMORPG" list. There are several OTHER MMORPG site put it under MMO.

    And MMO players already "agreed"? Do you actually have evidence for that? A few people here saying so does not count.

     

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Atis-nob Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Atis-nob It matters for those who are here to discuss things, since it spoils providing examples. Its annoying to dig through all irrelevant examples, bringed in on basis that "some ad-person calls this game MMO". If we start using term "MMO" for non-MMOs, this means we need new term for actual MMOs and its too time-consuming to find a word which all MMO players would agree on. Feeding ppl, using term in wrong way, with crap seems much more effective solution.
    The industry already uses the term MMO for games like LoL. It is just a convenient label to me. I will use it as such. Arguing is not going to change how others are using it. You already said it "find a word which all MMO players would agree on" because they can''t even agree on what the word refers to now. You are better off trying to find a new term (virtual world games?) and make it stick.
    Advertisement industry always uses some buzzwords irrespective of their actual meaning, and most of time these words doesn't stick. MMO players are already agreed on using MMO for MMO, good enough for me. For lol we have "online game". I dont see much misuse of MMO term in interviews/blogs with actual developers or gamers.
    Industry analytics firm classify LoL as a MMO. Even this site has it under the "MMORPG" list. There are several OTHER MMORPG site put it under MMO.

    And MMO players already "agreed"? Do you actually have evidence for that? A few people here saying so does not count.

     




    The Game List on this site is titled "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games", which includes among others, Diablo III and League of Legends. On the internet, the landscape of general consensus we find a List of MMO Games, where MMORPGs are linked to as a separate category.

    If there is a consensus, it's in the direction of including more games under the "MMO" title, with several different categories of MMOs, not just MMORPGs.

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

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


    The Game List on this site is titled "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games", which includes among others, Diablo III and League of Legends. On the internet, the landscape of general consensus we find a List of MMO Games, where MMORPGs are linked to as a separate category.

    If there is a consensus, it's in the direction of including more games under the "MMO" title, with several different categories of MMOs, not just MMORPGs.

     

    I think it is pretty clear that there is a trend broadening the use of the label "MMO". However, while i don't disagree MMORPG can be a sub-category, i don't see a lot of specific usage of that, in industry analytics, nor discussion sites.

    For example, there is no break-out of a sub MMORPG category under MMO in most of these reports, nor even this site breaks it down further. So may be there are not enough people caring it.

  • SukiyakiSukiyaki GreenwichPosts: 1,398Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by Sukiyaki
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Does anyone else think 2.5 billion is a surprisingly small portion of the market? Blizzard's net revenues for 2012 was 4.86 billion. It's an apples and oranges comparison but one Corporation's net dwarfs the entire free to play market segment.

    Some context , full information and correct information please.

    US$ 2.5B refers to the U.S. F2P MMO market revenues not the entire market.

    US$4.68 refers to the global all pricmodel all genres ActivisionBlizzard net revenues.

     

    That was was more like a pumpkins vs. peanuts comparison.

    Yes, that was really my point. zymurgeist was using the entire Blizzard revenue stream as an example of subscription revenues when most of that revenue was from their non-subscription sources.

    Like I pointed out in an earlier post, at the very best, the most WoW would bring in would be approximately $120M per month or $1.4Bn annually. The actual revenue is likely nowhere near that.

    I think the amalgamated data at newzoo is really more interesting because it shows how publishers are doing in relation with each other combining their total sales strategy (subscription, box fee, F2P, etc). Here we like to think in terms of p2p versus f2p, but most publishers seem to have a variety of revenue strategies that include some subscription, non-subscription, and box-fee only revenue streams.

    Using Blizzard is actually a good argument against subscriptions being dominant because their sub revenues are continuing to decline while their non sub revenues like Skylanders and D3 continue to soar. Skylanders was only projected to bring in about $500M overall, but has grossed over $1Bn. That's pretty amazing. It also shows how complex revenue models and strategies are. There is no "p2p" and "f2p". It is a complicated mix to try and squeeze as much money out of us as possible.

    It's not an argument that subscriptions are dominant. It's an argument that 2.5 billion a year from F2P is does not in any way signify anything other than it's a surprisingly small number. If you're digging for a deeper meaning you're wasting your time.  

    Its a smaller number in comparison to another number of an entirely different scale of context in a pointless comparison far beyond apples and oranges.

    You tossed a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the gaming market (U.S. F2P MMOs), against the entire global earnings of the worlds second largest gaming coorporation by revenues. Whether to make the F2P games look bad, play them down or Blizzard look better or all. Its misleading to take them out of that context.

    Its not surprising and hardly indicates they are small if you consider the context of both numbers .

    I'd say your argument is a waste of anyones time here.

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

    I'd say your argument is a waste of anyones time here.

    I hope you are not under the illusion that arguing on the internet is actually useful.

     

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by lizardbones The Game List on this site is titled "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games", which includes among others, Diablo III and League of Legends. On the internet, the landscape of general consensus we find a List of MMO Games, where MMORPGs are linked to as a separate category. If there is a consensus, it's in the direction of including more games under the "MMO" title, with several different categories of MMOs, not just MMORPGs.  
    I think it is pretty clear that there is a trend broadening the use of the label "MMO". However, while i don't disagree MMORPG can be a sub-category, i don't see a lot of specific usage of that, in industry analytics, nor discussion sites.

    For example, there is no break-out of a sub MMORPG category under MMO in most of these reports, nor even this site breaks it down further. So may be there are not enough people caring it.




    "MMORPG" has a definition, and it's a fairly stable one. In both common usage (WoW, Rift, TSW and EQ are referred to as an MMORPGs, while LoL, D3 and CoD multiplayer are not referred to as an MMORPGs), and in reference materials (MMORPG) the basic concept of MMORPG hasn't changed much for years.

    MMORPGs in general may not have enough market presence to register in industry wide research as a separate "thing", but that doesn't mean "MMORPG" is an undefined quantity.

    It may mean that MMORPGs aren't that relevant in a discussion about F2P though. Any effects of MMORPGs using a F2P business model will only be felt within the MMORPG genre, while the effects of other games, including mobile games that aren't MMORPGs at all using a F2P business model could push more MMORPGs to use a F2P business model.

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

  • Atis-nobAtis-nob BasementDwellTownPosts: 94Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Atis-nob

    Advertisement industry always uses some buzzwords irrespective of their actual meaning, and most of time these words doesn't stick. MMO players are already agreed on using MMO for MMO, good enough for me. For lol we have "online game". I dont see much misuse of MMO term in interviews/blogs with actual developers or gamers.

    Industry analytics firm classify LoL as a MMO. Even this site has it under the "MMORPG" list. There are several OTHER MMORPG site put it under MMO.

    And MMO players already "agreed"? Do you actually have evidence for that? A few people here saying so does not count.

    Analytics will entitle their paper depending on customers. If customers don't see a difference between MMO and tetris, analitycs will short "MMO and rpg-style online games revenue report" to "MMO revenue report". Its not like they gonna discuss MMO features, they discuss specific game projects, comparing target audience, monetization model etc. but not genre, because it doesnt matter when it comes to money. Same goes for MMO sites. If ad they sell hits MMO and MOBA gamers they write for MMO and MOBA gamers.

     

    Since we are not paid to discuss games, I dont see any reason why we should care about market value of MMOs more than game features. MMOs and non-MMOs can share same market but are different as games we discuss them as different games.

     

    Gamers on any taken portal include MMOs in MMO-category, but it varies for other online games, therefore "MMO" if a common term for MMOs but not generally accepted for other games.

  • sportsfansportsfan BlankenbergePosts: 431Member

    Since WoW brought in 1 billion dollars per year from 2005 to 2012  already (and probably being close to this figure in 2013 and 2014 as well due to the upcoming expansion sales)...

    It clearly shows that "unproven" and "expected "2.5 billion dollars is ... pathetiicly low for the complete industry.

    What would you think if ONE book brought in 35% of ALL revenue of all books published.

    Or ONE movie made 40% of the complete movie industry world wide.

    We would say the book/movie industry was dead...

     

    ------

    The laugh is ...: everyone is bragging about millions of accounts in this f2p world, but hardly anyone is actually paying and playing in MMO land 3 months after a new launch.

    F2P is a bad thing in MMO land as the constant content updates ask too many resources to keep up the revenue flow.

    F2P only works in other genres: like Dota like games (hardly content) or the real next milking cow from Blizzard: collectable card games like WoW's Hearthstone.

    Hearthstone is expected to rake in 400 million dollars on a yearly basis, no newF2P MMO will even come close to 10% of that claim...

     

     

     

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Atis-nob

    Since we are not paid to discuss games, I dont see any reason why we should care about market value of MMOs more than game features. MMOs and non-MMOs can share same market but are different as games we discuss them as different games.

     

    Because it is fun?

     

Sign In or Register to comment.