Howdy, Stranger!

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

Isn't P2P a more profitable model for a successful game?

iridescenceiridescence Member UncommonPosts: 1,552
Originally posted by Cephus404
 
 

You're the one claiming they're not making enough money, but all the evidence shows that making F2P games earns MORE than P2P games, which is why the overwhelming majority of games coming out today are F2P.  The fact that these studios are making more and more MMOs is proof that they are making plenty of money doing it.

Moving this over from that other thread where it is really cluttering up their PvP discussion:

 

What evidence are you talking about? WoW is still P2P, do you think they just don't like money? Games like ESO and Wildstar are P2P at launch so is FFXIV.

 

The only MMOs that seem to profit from going F2P are those which have dwindling sub bases or cheap games which are not designed to last.

 

I consider games like LoL and DotA to be in a different genre attracting a completely different crowd. I believe most true MMOs still aspire to be P2P. The only real exception I can think of is GW2 and while they got many people to buy their box many people are not happy with the direction the game has taken since.

 

I think hen a P2P game goes F2P it shows at least partial failure of the initial financial ambitions for the game.

 

«134

Comments

  • CazNeergCazNeerg Member Posts: 2,198

    You need to draw a distinction between F2P and Freemium.  F2P includes games which don't have a sub option, and generally when talking about quality games, there is a sub option.  That being said, as a general rule, freemium games make more money per player than subscription games.  If someone truly likes a game, they aren't going to stop playing it just because the revenue model changed.  If their attachment to the game was that weak, they were probably already on the way out the door.  So going freemium doesn't result in any kind of substantial loss of players who prefer subscriptions.  All it does is add more revenue streams in addition.  It lets people give the company money who either want to spend less than fifteen a month, or who just want to have more control over how they spend it.  It also lets subscription players pay money beyond the subscription in order to feel like they've improved their experience.

    Honestly, I'm not sure why WoW hasn't done a freemium conversion.  They are leaving a lot of money on the table that they could be raking in.  But then again, Blizzard has made lots of bizarre business decisions lately, look at the travesty of the RMAH in Diablo 3.

    Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
    Through passion, I gain strength.
    Through strength, I gain power.
    Through power, I gain victory.
    Through victory, my chains are broken.
    The Force shall free me.

  • iridescenceiridescence Member UncommonPosts: 1,552

    Freemium can be a nice model for the player if they just let you unlock everything with a lump sum payment and then not have to pay again like the Turbine games do which I think is actually a better deal than subbing to those games if you're going to play for more than a few months. But it is  probably a worse deal for the company than getting $15 a month out of those players reliably - actually I was just listening to the Massively podcast where they were discussing this.)

     

    In any case MMOs tend to be sub only when they are at their most profitable and move to Freemium/B2P/F2P when their sub base shrinks. If they really made more money out of one of those other models no matter how many players they had they would launch with that model. I guess there is the possibility that none of those companies can figure out the most profitable way to do things and they all made a mistake by launching with a sub  but I don't think that's likely and I think if we ever do see a WoW killer it's going to start and remain a sub game.

     

     

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Member CommonPosts: 3,675
    Originally posted by iridescence 

    What evidence are you talking about? WoW is still P2P, do you think they just don't like money? Games like ESO and Wildstar are P2P at launch so is FFXIV.

    This information has been posted many times here, there was a thread on it not too long ago:  

    http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/383838/page/1

    Some games can make a lot of money quickly through box sales, but let's be honest, all of those games are starting out with cash shops so they're not really P2P, they're hybrid games from day one.  I'm sure none of those games will make it to their first anniversary without switching to F2P.

    WoW lets you play free for the first 20 levels and has a cash shop.  Again, not P2P, it's a hybrid.

     

    The only MMOs that seem to profit from going F2P are those which have dwindling sub bases or cheap games which are not designed to last.

    Untrue.  If it was true then the vast majority of games out there would not be starting out F2P.  It just makes more money than P2P in the long run.

     

    I consider games like LoL and DotA to be in a different genre attracting a completely different crowd. I believe most true MMOs still aspire to be P2P. The only real exception I can think of is GW2 and while they got many people to buy their box many people are not happy with the direction the game has taken since.

    You can believe anything you want, all I care about is your evidence and you haven't presented any.  You seem to have a very unrealistic expectation of these games.

     

    I think hen a P2P game goes F2P it shows at least partial failure of the initial financial ambitions for the game.

     

    Then every single MMO on the planet has failed because I don't think you can name a single game that isn't at least partially F2P or has a cash shop to supplement their income.  Once a game realizes that it can make more money from the cash shop than it can from subscriptions, they drop the subscriptions in favor of pushing the cash shop.  That describes pretty much every game on the market today.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    I feel free to play MMOs are all failures.  They are generally just bad copies of WoW that couldn't retain any subscribers.  They instead feed off impulsive people who look can't resist buying things.  It's hard to begrudge companies wanting to get returns on their investments, but we end up with a genre that is filled with crappy games. 
  • CazNeergCazNeerg Member Posts: 2,198
    Originally posted by iridescence

    Freemium can be a nice model for the player if they just let you unlock everything with a lump sum payment and then not have to pay again like the Turbine games do which I think is actually a better deal than subbing to those games if you're going to play for more than a few months. But it is  probably a worse deal for the company than getting $15 a month out of those players reliably - actually I was just listening to the Massively podcast where they were discussing this.) 

    In any case MMOs tend to be sub only when they are at their most profitable and move to Freemium/B2P/F2P when their sub base shrinks. If they really made more money out of one of those other models no matter how many players they had they would launch with that model. I guess there is the possibility that none of those companies can figure out the most profitable way to do things and they all made a mistake by launching with a sub  but I don't think that's likely and I think if we ever do see a WoW killer it's going to start and remain a sub game. 

    There is not going to be a WoW killer.  The shape of the market won't allow it.  Yes, the move to freemium waits until the sub base shrinks, but that is not because sub only is inherently more profitable.  If it were, they would continue to just have the sub from the shrinking player base, rather than convert to freemium.  They wait to convert because a certain segment of the population that subscribes at the start are people who would prefer not to subscribe, but really want to play the game and will sub if that is the only way to do so.  If they have a free option from the start, they don't get those subscriber dollars.  If they announce that they will eventually have a free option, many of those people wait until it comes, and they don't get those subscriber dollars.  

    If past games are any indication, the optimal revenue generating path is to start out charging for the box and having acces be sub only, loudly claim that you will always be sub only, and have your freemium transition well planned and ready to go when it inevitably becomes needed.  Every other path leaves money on the table that would otherwise end up in the company's pockets.

    Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
    Through passion, I gain strength.
    Through strength, I gain power.
    Through power, I gain victory.
    Through victory, my chains are broken.
    The Force shall free me.

  • iridescenceiridescence Member UncommonPosts: 1,552
    Originally posted by Cephus404
     

    This information has been posted many times here, there was a thread on it not too long ago:  

    http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/383838/page/1

    I'll take a look at that later.

    Some games can make a lot of money quickly through box sales, but let's be honest, all of those games are starting out with cash shops so they're not really P2P, they're hybrid games from day one.  I'm sure none of those games will make it to their first anniversary without switching to F2P.

    WoW lets you play free for the first 20 levels and has a cash shop.  Again, not P2P, it's a hybrid.

    Having a cash shop doesn't make a game free to play. That is just twisting the definitions to suit your argument. No one would consider any game where you have to pay a sub every month anything but P2P. WoW is not a F2P game unless you are happy just playing to level 20 over and over  which I'm sure virtually no one is. That;s just a free trial without a time limit.

     

    And of course a game with a cash shop is going to make more money than a game without a cash shop. If the players are dumb enough to let a game get away with it I'm sure double dipping with a sub and a cash shop is most profitable.

     

     

    Untrue.  If it was true then the vast majority of games out there would not be starting out F2P.  It just makes more money than P2P in the long run.

    Vast majority? maybe only if you count every low budget Chinese cash shop game that usually only last for like 6 months a piece.. Most quality MMOs  have at least some element of sub in them or started that way. 

     

     

    I think hen a P2P game goes F2P it shows at least partial failure of the initial financial ambitions for the game.

     

    Then every single MMO on the planet has failed because I don't think you can name a single game that isn't at least partially F2P or has a cash shop to supplement their income.  Once a game realizes that it can make more money from the cash shop than it can from subscriptions, they drop the subscriptions in favor of pushing the cash shop.  That describes pretty much every game on the market today.

    Final Fantasy XIV, Elder Scrolls Online, tons of old games. It's stretching the definition of cash shop quite a bit to call what EVE has a cash shop and it's irrelevant anyway if they have cash shops. If they charge monthly fees which you have to pay  they are not F2P games. We are talking about F2P being profitable, not cash shops.

     

     

     

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Member CommonPosts: 3,675
    Originally posted by iridescence

    Having a cash shop doesn't make a game free to play. That is just twisting the definitions to suit your argument. No one would consider any game where you have to pay a sub every month anything but P2P. WoW is not a F2P game unless you are happy just playing to level 20 over and over  which I'm sure virtually no one is. That;s just a free trial without a time limit.

    I didn't say it makes it free to play, I said it makes it not subscription.  A sub  game, by definition, gives the player access to everything in the game for the price of the monthly subscription.  There are no games that I am aware of anymore that do that.  Even if you do pay a subscription, there are lots of things you will not have access to without whipping out the credit card.  That's not a sub game.

    And lots of people do play WoW free.  They just consume the first 20 levels and move on.  The same was true of AoC when they made Tortuga free to play.  People played it and then moved on.  That's how the F2P model works these days.

     

    And of course a game with a cash shop is going to make more money than a game without a cash shop. If the players are dumb enough to let a game get away with it I'm sure double dipping with a sub and a cash shop is most profitable.

    If it was, most games would use that model.  Like I said, go read that other thread, the links are there that prove that F2P is 3x as profitable as P2P.

     

    Vast majority? maybe only if you count every low budget Chinese cash shop game that usually only last for like 6 months a piece.. Most quality MMOs  have at least some element of sub in them or started that way. 

    Quality is in the eye of the beholder and is totally subjective.  You're biased toward sub games.  Sorry if I don't take your determinations seriously.  I couldn't find any figures on how many MMOs there are in operation today (can anyone help with that?) but we both know that the number of sub-only games is minuscule in comparison to F2P and cash shop games.  Of course we count all of the "low budget Chinese cash shop games".  They fit into the MMO category, don't they?

     

    Final Fantasy XIV, Elder Scrolls Online, tons of old games. It's stretching the definition of cash shop quite a bit to call what EVE has a cash shop and it's irrelevant anyway if they have cash shops. If they charge monthly fees which you have to pay  they are not F2P games. We are talking about F2P being profitable, not cash shops.

    Elder Scrolls isn't even out yet!  Come on, try to be honest.  You have one recent game (FFIXARR) and old stuff hardly anyone plays and that's your evidence that sub games are successful?  Really?

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Member Posts: 906

    Doesn't most money come from subscriptions, even in F2P games? At least in the US?

    For a game, it just needs a box price.

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

  • WarlyxWarlyx Member EpicPosts: 3,361
    Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

    Let's see.

    95% of sub only games have dropped to F2P models to survive,so... lets' see how many  F2P games have converted to subscription models to survive...umm...hmm...

     

     

     

     

    Yeah.

    allods online lol

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Member Posts: 906

    F2p games can do great as long as other games produce hardcore gamers.

    We cannot see the future though. Not even developers.

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

  • EkarosEkaros Member UncommonPosts: 367

    Define successful...

     

    F2P model is easy way to get new players that might spend something or sub for a while. It doesn't likely discourage the current players that much if the difference is resonable for them to keep paying...

  • FdzzaiglFdzzaigl Member UncommonPosts: 2,433

    Pure P2P probably isn't in fact.

    I do not have specific numbers on any of this, but from playing mostly F2P games with a "premium" sub option in the past months, I can say you wouldn't believe how much some people throw at these games in an effort to get an advantage over others, even if that advantage is limited.

    We're talking thousands upon thousands of dollars here for some.

    For example, in Age of Wulin, there weren't so many things for purchase at first which would get you a real advantage (there are many more now), but still people would spend hundreds of euros to level up faster than others, while being patient for 2 weeks would have gotten them the same result.

    Similarly, players spend thousands of euros on the recent "wishing" event to get some skill set which can be obtained much more easily and for no IRL money soon. Just to have a little advantage for a time.

    Even in games that are not much P2W at all, like GW2, people waste money. All those guys who bought the commander title at launch day by buying gems, spending hundreds of dollars on something which doesn't add much of a benefit.

    Or people spending thousands on precursor items for legendaries etc.

     

    Many F2P games count on these so called "whales" , people who just dump money on them. A few of the more devious ones of course design their model so you can't play the game any other way.

    But even if the things for sale are pointless vanity shit, you can still count on a few dudes dropping the cash on it.

    That's why so many P2P games make sure to have a cash shop with vanity in there.

    Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!

  • MikePaladinMikePaladin Member UncommonPosts: 592

    Subscription model brings hundreds of millions to some companies. One of them is World of Warcraft when they were at TOP of their success their yearly income from subscription was 2.160.000.000 . and this not including Special features from blizzard Fraction change  range change and so on also not including  pet and mount shop. But you often will see some one flying on one of them. P2p is extremely profitable if game is fresh for the year of it release. And because all P2P MMO released last year failed hard because they focused much on a old Successful MODEL  and didn't brought nothing new to the table except bad Parody of BIG GAMES

    Free 2 Play is a curse upon MMO.

    - Poor quality

    - Reducement of development team  in order to make F2P game profitable  which leads to:

    high content delay

    tons of bugs  witch are fixed very slowly  because of small staff every thing is classified  bugs that MUST BE FIXED NOW and Bugs that are not Critical   GW2 1bug was in  UI for a year

    In gw2 I have 3k H game play and daily I see lot's of players but number of people using cash shop is rather small. Some were it was saying that 20 % of players use Cash shop with real money. witch is very low income and most F2P mmo are like this Huge majority of player base is non cash shop users.

    I know that when Game turn F2P they say F2p  turned to be successful but it's a lie, yes! people come but most of them are people who will never spent a penny for a game of like me FOR a GAME NOT WORTH MY TIME. Also they fire a big number of their stuff so they balance the number.

    We became F2p now we make 5 apples each month and because our staff is from 4 people we are profitable and we have 1 pure income apple but not like before 800.  So if you think largely and not only from you're point of view because you a cheap person who play bad F2P game you realize  that F2P is low income model.

    This was example of a REAL!! F2P model

    Unfortunately MOST F2P game today are quite based of  FORCING YOU paying.

    SWTOR = Cash shop features are so expensive and they where so greedy that they limited even UI  some one did calculation and to buy all features will cost you 270$ if I'm not wrong.  SO is it rely F2P ? or GET SCAMMED TO PLAY

    Same thing is about WORLD OF TANKS  where last tier tanks fight goes in minus even if you win so eventually you are forced buying premium account .

    F2P are not rely F2P they are LEGIT SCUM TO PLAY   so selecting from this two I would select Subscription like 10 15  monthly but ONLY IF GAME BRINGS SOMETHING NEW AND CARE ABOUT DETAILS THAT MOST GAME LOVE

  • sportsfansportsfan Member Posts: 431

    It depends on the model.

     

    An MMORPG going f2P is not good: game development for an open world MMORPG is too costly to be supported by selling a helmet and a sword and a horse to some lone dude.

     

    A Dota game or some other limited content game (like a ... collectable card game) is much better with F2P mechanics and a cash shop.

    No wonder Blizzard shelved their next free to play Titan MMO for a card game. The latter will bring in more money than any new MMORPG for the next 5 years.

     

     

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910

    The important part is the "successful game" bit. Monetization is irrelevant if the game itself isn't something people want to play. From that point the contribution of monetization depends on what kind of people want to play the game.

    Do the people who want to play the game want to subscribe to the game?
    Would the people who play the game rather have a free option, with cash shop purchases?
    Does the game's audience and do the game's mechanics support both options at the same time?

    Hopefully I'm not covering the same ground as the post above mine, since I haven't read it yet, but we'll see. League of Legends attracts a particular kind of consumer. That consumer doesn't want to pay a subscription to play LoL. At the same time, many of them don't mind spending money in a cash shop. LoL is a very successful game, but it wouldn't be successful with a subscription option because the people the game attracts have no interest in paying for a subscription.

    SWToR started with a subscription option, but didn't get nearly the subscriptions they wanted, and the game's population showed indications of dropping to the point that the game would not be profitable. We know from statements Bioware or EA made that the unprofitable zone was somewhere south of 300k subscriptions. So SWToR changed their monetization model and attracted many more players to the game than they had with just a subscription model. They have more revenue and more profit as well. SWToR is attracting people who are interested in subscriptions, interested in possibly buying something from a cash shop, and people who are interested in both options. They have maximized the game's money making potential.

    World of Warcraft has more players than any MMORPG out there, and they are doing it with a subscription and additional services. We can't really know what would happen if WoW had a F2P option, but it seems likely that they would lose subscriptions. Blizzard doesn't seem to believe that they would gain enough cash shop purchases to more than make up the revenue from lost subscriptions. It's also possible that WoW would attract so many people with a F2P option that they just couldn't handle all the players. The game play experience would be degraded so much that it's not worth doing. In any event, WoW's monetization model works for the game, and works very well.

    A successful game must use the correct monetization model to gain the most revenue from their customers. Any one monetization system isn't better than the others, but each system can be better for a particular group of customers.

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

  • Vunak23Vunak23 Member UncommonPosts: 633
    Originally posted by Cephus404

    I think hen a P2P game goes F2P it shows at least partial failure of the initial financial ambitions for the game.

     

    Then every single MMO on the planet has failed because I don't think you can name a single game that isn't at least partially F2P or has a cash shop to supplement their income.  Once a game realizes that it can make more money from the cash shop than it can from subscriptions, they drop the subscriptions in favor of pushing the cash shop.  That describes pretty much every game on the market today.

    Final Fantasy XI. UO. DAoC. Asherons Call. 

     

    Sub games are only successful when the game in question is good enough to support a sub. We haven't had one in a long time. FFXIV will more than likely last as a sub game because of SE's ability to keep pulling players back in. 

    I would venture to say that FFXI was probably one of the most successful games on the market. You don't get named the most profitable FF of all time for nothing. 

    "In the immediate future, we have this one, and then we’ve got another one that is actually going to be – so we’re going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what we’re targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you can’t hold me to it. But what we’re targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Vunak23
    Originally posted by Cephus404

    I think hen a P2P game goes F2P it shows at least partial failure of the initial financial ambitions for the game.

     

    Then every single MMO on the planet has failed because I don't think you can name a single game that isn't at least partially F2P or has a cash shop to supplement their income.  Once a game realizes that it can make more money from the cash shop than it can from subscriptions, they drop the subscriptions in favor of pushing the cash shop.  That describes pretty much every game on the market today.

    Final Fantasy XI. UO. DAoC. Asherons Call. 

    UO has had an item mall for over a decade. 

    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

  • MeowheadMeowhead Member UncommonPosts: 3,716
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    UO has had an item mall for over a decade. 

    Another notable failure then.

    Much like how all Elder Scroll games are failures ever since horse armor.

    Or Mass Effect, pretty much an unending cascade of failure as a game ever since they put in DLC. :(

    Wait, failure is defined as 'when the monetization model makes me make this face :( ' right?

  • MeowheadMeowhead Member UncommonPosts: 3,716
    Originally posted by remsleep

    Consider that when it comes to old games, it would cost a lot to add viable cash shops.

    So what you're saying is.... they're not doing WELL enough to add a cash shop? :D

    Dunno how valid that theory is, and I don't have numbers to back it up either way, but the idea makes me laugh, at least. :)

  • Vunak23Vunak23 Member UncommonPosts: 633

    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    Originally posted by Vunak23
    Originally posted by Cephus404

    I think hen a P2P game goes F2P it shows at least partial failure of the initial financial ambitions for the game.

     

    Then every single MMO on the planet has failed because I don't think you can name a single game that isn't at least partially F2P or has a cash shop to supplement their income.  Once a game realizes that it can make more money from the cash shop than it can from subscriptions, they drop the subscriptions in favor of pushing the cash shop.  That describes pretty much every game on the market today.

    Final Fantasy XI. UO. DAoC. Asherons Call. 

    UO has had an item mall for over a decade. 

    I haven't played UO in a very long time so I wasn't sure. That doesn't refute the others mentioned. 

     

    Originally posted by Meowhead

    Originally posted by remsleep

    Consider that when it comes to old games, it would cost a lot to add viable cash shops.

    So what you're saying is.... they're not doing WELL enough to add a cash shop? :D

    Dunno how valid that theory is, and I don't have numbers to back it up either way, but the idea makes me laugh, at least. :)

    It is a laughable argument. In the case of FFXI alone, they just released a new Expansion a few months ago so I would say they are still doing fairly well. Not to mention new updates for the game come quite often. Asherons Call is doing well enough that they brought Asherons Call 2 out of the grave as a bonus to people subbed to the game. 

    But yea... not doing well enough to go F2P... lol. 

    "In the immediate future, we have this one, and then we’ve got another one that is actually going to be – so we’re going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what we’re targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you can’t hold me to it. But what we’re targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo

  • Thessik_IrontailThessik_Irontail Member UncommonPosts: 76

    There is no evidence that F2P MMO makes more then Sub based MMO, in fact it is actually quite the opposite.

     

    You can go and look at any of the earnings reports for various companies, take NCSoft, since GW2 is kind of the king of the trash pile of F2P MMOs, and the amount it takes in during a quarter on the investors report is a complete and utter joke compared to even a lowly successful sub based MMO.

     

    This is why sub fees are the best way to ensure that companies get paid lots of money while the costs to each player are kept at a beyond affordable price. If the profits are huge for the companies, they will make more MMOs, they will have the means to update MMOs with quality content, etc..

     

    With sub fees, you can have successful niche MMOs as well

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Meowhead
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    UO has had an item mall for over a decade. 

    Another notable failure then.

    Much like how all Elder Scroll games are failures ever since horse armor.

    Or Mass Effect, pretty much an unending cascade of failure as a game ever since they put in DLC. :(

    Wait, failure is defined as 'when the monetization model makes me make this face :( ' right?

    LOL! I started reading that and was like "Wait.... what? Did she read it wrong? What the...????" and then got to the last line. image

    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

  • Thessik_IrontailThessik_Irontail Member UncommonPosts: 76
    Originally posted by remsleep

    Microtransaction model has the highest potential profitability.

    Why?

    Because there is no ceiling on how much a player can spend.

    In a pure sub model, the most you get out of each player (not counting multiple accounts) is the sub fee 

     

    This is the same thing as saying that a Casino has the highest potential profitibility for an average person.

    Why?

    Because there is no ceiling on how much/often a slot machine can pay out.

    In a regular job model, the most you get out of your employer is the hourly wage.

  • MeowheadMeowhead Member UncommonPosts: 3,716
    Originally posted by Thessik_Irontail
    Originally posted by remsleep

    Microtransaction model has the highest potential profitability.

    Why?

    Because there is no ceiling on how much a player can spend.

    In a pure sub model, the most you get out of each player (not counting multiple accounts) is the sub fee 

     

    This is the same thing as saying that a Casino has the highest potential profitibility for an average person.

    Why?

    Because there is no ceiling on how much/often a slot machine can pay out.

    In a regular job model, the most you get out of your employer is the hourly wage.

    ... but... but... in this example, wouldn't it make more sense to say that the CASINO represents the F2P model, rather than the gambler?

    I mean basically they're relying on the poor impulse control and huge amounts of money from their customers....

    The gambler is more like a F2P customer than they are the actual business.

  • indojabijinindojabijin Member UncommonPosts: 97
    Originally posted by Cephus404

    I didn't say it makes it free to play, I said it makes it not subscription.  A sub  game, by definition, gives the player access to everything in the game for the price of the monthly subscription.  There are no games that I am aware of anymore that do that.  Even if you do pay a subscription, there are lots of things you will not have access to without whipping out the credit card.  That's not a sub game.

    A subscription game, by definition, gives the player access to all content by paying a monthly fee. WoW falls under that category. You pay $15 a month and you have access to everything that is offered in game. Freemium games don't offer that. Either you can't chat, can't have X amount of gold, can't access certain content, bank slots, bag slots, etc.

    WoW's cash shop offers nothing but vanity or cosmetic items that don't impact the way you can access the content in game.

Sign In or Register to comment.