Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Free Market Gaming - P2P, P2W, B2P, F2P ETC - How it works. (In the real world)

24

Comments

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by RealmLordsKen

    I find it unusual that proponents of F2P systems declaring the subscription model dead, tend to point to Freemium game conversions as their proof, while these Freemium games in current form make what might be a significant portion of their income *selling subscriptions*.

    You get the wrong declaration.

    It is the "sub-only" model is dead, not the hybrid. Tell me, don't you think the sub-only model is dead given all the freemium games out there that do not force everyone to sub?

     

  • DamonVileDamonVile Member UncommonPosts: 4,818
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
     

    There is just rarely an instance where one can shoehorn a broad array of publishers into a single tiny marketing blurb. The system is just too varied for such  overly simplistic generalizations. I do think that overly simple models are probably going the way of the dodo as payment systems evolve, but even then it's hard to make sweeping statements about that without sounding sort of silly.

    side note: I responded to this much earlier this morning but a string of meetings took me away until I could finish at lunch.

    That's my problem with all of the threads like this. People say f2p is bad, but what is f2p ? No two are really alike other than the very basic idea of it's free to access and will have a cash shop that sells something on it.

    After that what they offer on the cash shop, how often the game sees up dates and what those up dates are. What level of CS the company provides etc etc etc all vary widely from game to game. Saying all payment models are the same is like looking at two boxes and saying they're the same without actually knowing what's inside.

    It's even worse when people try and label players f2p or p2p and tag them with reasons why they do it. It just screams I don't want to understand people I just want to simplify it so it's easy for me to cope with....and when I put a negative spin on the one I don't like it makes me feel better about the choice I made.

  • Abuz0rAbuz0r Member UncommonPosts: 550

    No sorry, the fact is:

    Pay 2 play companies have incentive to keep you having fun and playing.

    Free 2 play companies have incentive to get you to spend money on nic-nacs and figure you'll keep playing regardless of quality because it's free.

    Buy 2 play is a cash grab because they have no incentive to do ANYTHING after your initial purchase.

  • Kevyne-ShandrisKevyne-Shandris Member UncommonPosts: 2,077
    Originally posted by Abuz0r

    No sorry, the fact is:

    Pay 2 play companies have incentive to keep you having fun and playing.

    Free 2 play companies have incentive to get you to spend money on nic-nacs and figure you'll keep playing regardless of quality because it's free.

    Buy 2 play is a cash grab because they have no incentive to do ANYTHING after your initial purchase.

    ^^KISS principle in action. ^^

     

    WoW has to keep it's players happy, because the price to play is a gate in itself. It's a negative they have to make bearable.

     

    GW2 has no real incentive to improve it's product because the boxes paid for the initial development, and soon as they see the game costing more than keeping it open...here comes GW3.

     

    IGG games is an example of the epitome of a P2W marketer, and since it's so cheap for Snail Games to produce games in China, they don't even have to worry about updates, the addicted will gladly pay for a 2004 quality game to be the king.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    Fact is a free to play game has to be fun and good quality before I will spend any money at all.
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Fact is a free to play game has to be fun and good quality before I will spend any money at all.

    Fact is a free to play game has to be fun and good quality before I will spend any TIME at all.

    "fun" and "good quality", of course, is subjective. Personally i find several F2P game with that.

     

  • Abuz0rAbuz0r Member UncommonPosts: 550

    That's a decent point, how ever it does not deter from the fact that if they can get 100,000,000 people to log into a $150 hero engine chinese grinder that runs on a Core2Duo E8400 and 0.1% of them are willing to pay money to dress up their zelda looking pixel stack and be king.  They'll have 100,000 paying customers for total trash.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    I don't think I am unusual. Likely for those .1% the game must be fun and good quality before they willpay as well. People tend not to pay for things they don't enjoy I'd they don't need to.
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    I'd=if
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • TatercakeTatercake Member UncommonPosts: 286
    i do not agree with this at all haven been sucked dry from uo intel last year with subs i come to dislike the subs system it is a huge waste of my time as real life has come into my gaming time now older wiser  and life problems i liek the b2p  system  if i wish to spend a extra 100 on a game i do and i do not feel like i have to play everymoment of the day   to get my monthly  money worth of the game
  • Kevyne-ShandrisKevyne-Shandris Member UncommonPosts: 2,077
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Fact is a free to play game has to be fun and good quality before I will spend any money at all.

    Fact is a free to play game has to be fun and good quality before I will spend any TIME at all.

    "fun" and "good quality", of course, is subjective. Personally i find several F2P game with that.

     

    But if players don't stay and be loyal to their FAVORITE game or game they play most, the publisher wins little in the exchange.

     

    WoW is many things because they have a loyal base of players that will remain and keep the publisher employed to make more games/expansions.

     

    Butterflies have to come home some day, afterall...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z9wd9bS1FM

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Pyatra

    You know, after the first few sub sentences I thought: "Oh, an unbiased breakdown of the payment model"

    http://tsaoshin.deviantart.com/art/Part-of-Your-No-388260981

    So to put it bluntly without the pay base fan boyism

    Sub = Companies can spend more for updates because they can budget better, sometimes cash shop for aesthetic items but minimal income from it.

    B2P = Box sales are driven by grassroots and word of mouth growth to not "burn out" sales growth additional cash shop subsidizes and allows for small content updates after the honeymoon period.  Income somewhat unstable but usually 1st year is solid

    F2P =  Cash shop is primary source of income. Initial investment in the came is lower than the others, highly unstable income but maximizes potential profits until specific changes in player base.  Only keeps a small team on payroll for many small but rapid aesthetic updates and usually employs level faster via cash shop or the Gem Combining Pyramid of Probability. (PWI uses the combing pyramid for a lot of there supplementary profits.)

    Freemium = Sub + one of the others, like a free trial but significantly more locked down, some content/features behind pay wall.  Income has a portion that can be budgeted for while a separate portion can potential provide an additional unstable income bonus.

    I am fine with all models, they have their place and some games just aren't built to be F2P and that's fine.  Anyone who can't see that all the options are viable business models either doesn't understand business or they refuse to be wrong in their hating.

    So, having said that, time for the biased part.  I don't like the Gem Combining Pyramid of Probability like PWI uses, that is all.

    Can you link to any data, reports or articles that support those "facts"? You don't see that you're doing the same kind of "I think it is this, therefore it must be" post as the OP?

     

    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

  • plat0nicplat0nic Member Posts: 301
    I'm gonna have to go with p2p. if they lose subs they lose money. they have the greatest incentive to keep a quality engine running. I do enjoy f2p though for a more "enjoyable" experience because I don't have any expectatioN and am sometimes pleasantly surprised.

    image
    Main Game: Eldevin (Plat0nic)
    2nd Game: Path of Exile (Platonic Hate)

  • rsealmanrsealman Member Posts: 44
    Originally posted by plat0nic
    I'm gonna have to go with p2p. if they lose subs they lose money. they have the greatest incentive to keep a quality engine running. I do enjoy f2p though for a more "enjoyable" experience because I don't have any expectatioN and am sometimes pleasantly surprised.

    Technically speaking, not really.

    Just because a gaming company gets a steady stream of cash doesn't mean they are going to asure a quality engine. All it takes is for the dev team to use some 3rd party engine like Hero Engine or Gamebryo and weird stuff might happen.

    Examples, Rift and SWTOR. Both run like snails due to limitations on their respective engines.

     

  • Kevyne-ShandrisKevyne-Shandris Member UncommonPosts: 2,077
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Can you link to any data, reports or articles that support those "facts"? You don't see that you're doing the same kind of "I think it is this, therefore it must be" post as the OP?

     

    Can you as well?

     

    After all, we need evidence not just poking issues with a stick because it's easier.

  • Abuz0rAbuz0r Member UncommonPosts: 550

    Your 2 examples, rift and swtor.  Free 2 play quality games.  Exactly.  The point is, to be a p2p game, you have to deliver a quality product.   Rift and SWTOR were both miserable failures that didn't deliver a nice enough product to keep their subscribers. 

    Rift is a single path game. Lineology is a major determination of game quality.  If there is only 1 path to follow (per faction) and each time you choose that same faction you repeat the same activities as you level, you have found yourself in a low quality grinder.

    Swtor was too generic to even interest me to level 20.  I realized I was in a major time sink relying solely on its IP to keep paralyzed fanatic subscribers.

    When Lineage 2 came out, with all the different starting areas, all the different choices classes dungeons, multiple but parallel paths to reach common ends of difficult monsters and dungeons.  

    As time went on and Lineage 2 became a game of the 2000 era, NC realized it was no longer a subscription quality game and changed it to a f2p.  This is success and proof of my points in action.

     

  • GaendricGaendric Member UncommonPosts: 624
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    Can you link to any data, reports or articles that support those "facts"? You don't see that you're doing the same kind of "I think it is this, therefore it must be" post as the OP?

     

    This seems to be ging on a lot lately, on both sides of the argument.

    Everyone claims to have "facts" and to know the "truth" without a shred of evidence or (in many cases) even having it thought through logically. 

     

    I guess it just shows that it is an emotional debate.

    People love their games and then project their feelings and thoughts, even if heavily biased.

    At least it shows they deeply care. :)

     

  • IGaveUpIGaveUp Member Posts: 273
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by RealmLordsKen

    I find it unusual that proponents of F2P systems declaring the subscription model dead, tend to point to Freemium game conversions as their proof, while these Freemium games in current form make what might be a significant portion of their income *selling subscriptions*.

    You get the wrong declaration.

    It is the "sub-only" model is dead, not the hybrid. Tell me, don't you think the sub-only model is dead given all the freemium games out there that do not force everyone to sub?

     

    I agree, many are hybrids.  And I think that's actually my point.  To my understanding, item shop F2P didn't kill subscriptions (yet) in the western market.  The market adapted with the hybrid as a way of staying competitive.  Subscriptions didn't die, they changed.

     

    Sub-Only?  I see it primarily as a means to optimize revenue at release, cashing in on box sales.  Is there any doubt that most (of course not all) subscription games are expected to go hybrid eventually?  Will that stop publishers from selling boxes?  I sort of doubt it, as long as publishers think they can make some extra bucks by doing so.

     

    On the other hand, some publisher might insist on staying sub-only for the life of the game.  It better be a damned good game because the competition in this market is fierce.

     

    BTW: my post wasn't intended as chain-yanking.  Just encouraging discussion and sort of poking the F2P advocates with the idea that subscriptions haven't really died, while being realistic that P2P systems either have to adapt or die off.  I'm of the opinion that most highly polarized debates are founded in a reality that's more in the middle than either side wants to believe.

    edit: kant spel

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    Swtor kept over 500k subs far far more than almost all mmo. They just didn't have enough to justify the 200 million it cost to make.

    Keeping more subs than that is not realistic. Now they know it.
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • Abuz0rAbuz0r Member UncommonPosts: 550
    Originally posted by RealmLordsKen
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by RealmLordsKen

    I find it unusual that proponents of F2P systems declaring the subscription model dead, tend to point to Freemium game conversions as their proof, while these Freemium games in current form make what might be a significant portion of their income *selling subscriptions*.

    You get the wrong declaration.

    It is the "sub-only" model is dead, not the hybrid. Tell me, don't you think the sub-only model is dead given all the freemium games out there that do not force everyone to sub?

     

    I agree, many are hybrids.  And I think that's actually my point.  To my understanding, item shop F2P didn't kill subscriptions (yet) in the western market.  The market adapted with the hybrid as a way of staying competitive.  Subscriptions didn't die, they changed.

     

    Sub-Only?  I see it primarily as a means to optimize revenue at release, cashing in on box sales.  Is there any doubt that most (of course not all) subscription games are expected to go hybrid eventually?  Will that stop publishers from selling boxes?  I sort of doubt it, as long as publishers think they can make some extra bucks by doing so.

     

    On the other hand, some publisher might insist on staying sub-only for the life of the game.  It better be a damned good game because the competition in this market is fierce.

     

    BTW: my post wasn't intended as chain-yanking.  Just encouraging discussion and sort of poking the F2P advocates with the idea that subscriptions haven't really died, while being realistic that P2P systems either have to adapt or die off.  I'm of the opinion that most highly polarized debates are founded in a reality that's more in the middle than either side wants to believe.

    edit: kant spel

    Thank you, the highlighted portion proves all my points.  You want to float a turd, that's easy, but the best of the best of the best will be found in the pay2play market, the succesful side of it atleast.

  • Kevyne-ShandrisKevyne-Shandris Member UncommonPosts: 2,077
    Originally posted by Gaendric
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    Can you link to any data, reports or articles that support those "facts"? You don't see that you're doing the same kind of "I think it is this, therefore it must be" post as the OP?

     

    This seems to be ging on a lot lately, on both sides of the argument.

    Everyone claims to have "facts" and to know the "truth" without a shred of evidence or (in many cases) even having it thought through logically. 

     

    I guess it just shows that it is an emotional debate.

    People love their games and then project their feelings and thoughts, even if heavily biased.

    At least it shows they deeply care. :)

     

    Evidence is like matching the statistics to stock reports.

    Evidence is the players claim XYZ is broken, and the raid stats show but 2% of even 10% raiding even finished it.

    Evidence is WotLK with 12mil players because of ease of access, to Cata and 7mil players because of limiting access despite having LFG/LFR afterwards.

     

    There's a lot of evidence to share.

  • Abuz0rAbuz0r Member UncommonPosts: 550
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Swtor kept over 500k subs far far more than almost all mmo. They just didn't have enough to justify the 200 million it cost to make.

    Keeping more subs than that is not realistic. Now they know it.

    You don't make a $200m product unless the market has a void and is craving what you're creating.

    When the market is somewhat satisfied, and the only thing you're bringing to the table is a competing alternative, you don't invest $200m.  That's their foolishness. 

  • IGaveUpIGaveUp Member Posts: 273
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    I do think that overly simple models are probably going the way of the dodo as payment systems evolve, but even then it's hard to make sweeping statements about that without sounding sort of silly.

     

    Ditto.  The more inclusive a statement the more likely that it is incorrect.  (btw: great reply)

     

    In my opinion, the market is finding itself after a period of change.  It's tough to make money, and games are so expensive and take so long to produce that coming up with a well timed winner that makes a tidy profit is one serious challenge.  So they do their best to monetize in whatever ways they can find.  Right now, that's charge for as many things as you can in a non-intrusive manner without alienating the playerbase.  Hehe, like that's easy to do :-)

     

     

  • DamonVileDamonVile Member UncommonPosts: 4,818
    Originally posted by Abuz0r

    Your 2 examples, rift and swtor.  Free 2 play quality games.  Exactly.  The point is, to be a p2p game, you have to deliver a quality product.   Rift and SWTOR were both miserable failures that didn't deliver a nice enough product to keep their subscribers. 

     

     

    Switching from p2p to f2p SWTOR doubled it's sub numbers....yes it's SUB numbers. They didn't do anything to the game or add any content...but the numbers doubled. To me that means there is something else going on in the pay model market than just game X is good and ppl will pay a sub for it and game B is bad and people wont.

    And calling a game that made $130 million last year a miserable failure ...well... I wish all my projects failed that bad. But honestly you're like a year late to be trying to post all this nonsense about games failing and what not. Everyone who reads these forums on even a semi regular bases has seen the numbers and only the die hard critics are still resorting to " it's all made up, my gut feeling is way more reliable "

  • IGaveUpIGaveUp Member Posts: 273
    Originally posted by DamonVile
     

    And calling a game that made $130 million last year a miserable failure ...well... I wish all my projects failed that bad.

     

    Hell yeah, mine too.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.