Why do people focus on retention in F2P games when it's not the focus on how F2P creates revenue.
Retention is important in pure susbcription games as that's the only means of making money.
Retaining a F2P player who doesn't spend a dime for 5 years or 5 minutes = no money gained.
F2P games are all about monetizing the 5%-20% of the paying playerbase - that's what matters - if you can get your paying player to log in every content update and spend money - you are doing it right as an F2P dev.
Well, lets look at it this way.
How do F2P games make most of their money.... subs. This is the primary source of revenue for F2P, and is greatly affected by retention. F2P is affected by retention MORE than P2P, because it has to convert AFTER they have played the game.
<snip>
F2P games do not make most of their money from optional subscription - not sure where you are getting this from but it's not the case.
If a game has anything similar to "lockbox" mechanic - this is where 90% of the revenue comes from.
Now if a game does not have a lockbox mechanic - and a premium subscription offers a lot in terms of value - I could see exceptions.
But lockboxes is what rules revenue generation in F2P
Sub/Timecard has been the primary revenue generation method for both F2P and P2P for years. I will agree that with the addition of social gaming and then mobile (which include more monetized content, such as energy), it has declined as a % of the whole. However, for the games that are generally discussed (MMORPG) here, the sub/timecard (both mandatory and optional) are the primary source of revenue. This is even more true in the west than in the east.
Why do people focus on retention in F2P games when it's not the focus on how F2P creates revenue.
Retention is important in pure susbcription games as that's the only means of making money.
Retaining a F2P player who doesn't spend a dime for 5 years or 5 minutes = no money gained.
F2P games are all about monetizing the 5%-20% of the paying playerbase - that's what matters - if you can get your paying player to log in every content update and spend money - you are doing it right as an F2P dev.
Well, lets look at it this way.
How do F2P games make most of their money.... subs. This is the primary source of revenue for F2P, and is greatly affected by retention. F2P is affected by retention MORE than P2P, because it has to convert AFTER they have played the game.
<snip>
F2P games do not make most of their money from optional subscription - not sure where you are getting this from but it's not the case.
If a game has anything similar to "lockbox" mechanic - this is where 90% of the revenue comes from.
Now if a game does not have a lockbox mechanic - and a premium subscription offers a lot in terms of value - I could see exceptions.
But lockboxes is what rules revenue generation in F2P
Sub/Timecard has been the primary revenue generation method for both F2P and P2P for years. I will agree that with the addition of social gaming and then mobile (which include more monetized content, such as energy), it has declined as a % of the whole. However, for the games that are generally discussed (MMORPG) here, the sub/timecard (both mandatory and optional) are the primary source of revenue. This is even more true in the west than in the east.
Agreed. A classic example is SWTOR, where at least half the revenue is from subscriptions.
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
Why do people focus on retention in F2P games when it's not the focus on how F2P creates revenue.
Retention is important in pure susbcription games as that's the only means of making money.
Retaining a F2P player who doesn't spend a dime for 5 years or 5 minutes = no money gained.
F2P games are all about monetizing the 5%-20% of the paying playerbase - that's what matters - if you can get your paying player to log in every content update and spend money - you are doing it right as an F2P dev.
Well, lets look at it this way.
How do F2P games make most of their money.... subs. This is the primary source of revenue for F2P, and is greatly affected by retention. F2P is affected by retention MORE than P2P, because it has to convert AFTER they have played the game.
<snip>
F2P games do not make most of their money from optional subscription - not sure where you are getting this from but it's not the case.
If a game has anything similar to "lockbox" mechanic - this is where 90% of the revenue comes from.
Now if a game does not have a lockbox mechanic - and a premium subscription offers a lot in terms of value - I could see exceptions.
But lockboxes is what rules revenue generation in F2P
Sub/Timecard has been the primary revenue generation method for both F2P and P2P for years. I will agree that with the addition of social gaming and then mobile (which include more monetized content, such as energy), it has declined as a % of the whole. However, for the games that are generally discussed (MMORPG) here, the sub/timecard (both mandatory and optional) are the primary source of revenue. This is even more true in the west than in the east.
Agreed. A classic example is SWTOR, where at least half the revenue is from subscriptions.
People also tend to 'conveniently' forget that some of the biggest names in F2P (such as Runescape) have been almost exclusively sub based. Even when the mainstream games (starting with DDO in 2009) converted to F2P, they were heavily dependent on sub revenue.
I do agree that as PC games adapt to mobile/social standards that the sub will decline, and that other forms of payment will increase. The way that people play has change, and the way that they are monetized will also have to change.
You compete with "free" the way Microsoft does vs Linux, the way WOW does vs all other MMO's, and that is by producing the "overall" highest quality product. When it comes to computer software, the best usually captures the largest market, even if cost is kind of high.
Personally, I'd pay $20/mo. to play the kind of MMO I'd want to see. And I don't play any that do not measure up, even if they are free.
OSes are not games where people can switch around at their whim.
And how is WOW faring in this f2p world? Subs are down to what .. 4-5M now? Even Blizz won't produce another sub-only game (HoTS, Hearthstone, Overwatch are all f2p).
To most MMORPG players, free is not worth their time, or money.
120,000 people all paying $18 a month ($216 a year), in just 2 years is $50 million. The revenues just keep going up from there. Free is not even worth the developers time, unless their game is a flop and have to resort to pulling in people for free & start fishing for weak egos..
To answer your question, make a good game and have it keeped gamers sucked in for years.
Since no good games have been made, they are having trouble competing with f2p.
Why would any dev base their business strategy on a time horizon (years) that is highly unpredictable? Who knows what is the newest entertainment technology even 1 or 2 years down the road.
If i were them, i would much rather make a fun couple of weeks game (which lots of successful single player games are like that ... MMORPGs should learn from that).
To most MMORPG players, free is not worth their time, or money.
120,000 people all paying $18 a month ($216 a year), in just 2 years is $50 million. The revenues just keep going up from there. Free is not even worth the developers time, unless their game is a flop and have to resort to pulling in people for free & start fishing for weak egos..
Statistically speaking you are incorrect. There are more players playing F2P, and more money being made in F2P than ever before. It seems like it is worth both their time and money.
To most MMORPG players, free is not worth their time, or money.
120,000 people all paying $18 a month ($216 a year), in just 2 years is $50 million. The revenues just keep going up from there. Free is not even worth the developers time, unless their game is a flop and have to resort to pulling in people for free & start fishing for weak egos..
Statistically speaking you are incorrect. There are more players playing F2P, and more money being made in F2P than ever before. It seems like it is worth both their time and money.
He is confused between what HE likes, and what the rest of the market likes.
Clearly, many feel that f2p is worth the time, otherwise they would have not spend so many time doing it. That logic is elementary. Have anyone here kept playing a game they think is boring?
Out of 10 million North American WoW players, how many of those previous paying subscribers have found F2P worth their time?
The Market is speaking. You do not have sensitive enough ears to listen to it.
Subsequently, the "many" people you speak of (that feel F2P is worth their time), is a small percentile of the MMORPG space.
To my knowledge, no one has done any statistics that determine what former WoW players are now playing. As such, there isnt any reason to believe that they are playing any more/any less F2P than non former WoW players.
The only indications that we have (from any of a number of commonly reported sources) is that F2P is both growing in volume, and makeing more money each year. Do you have anything to point at to indicate otherwise? (i.e. is everyone missing something?)
Out of 10 million North American WoW players, how many of those previous paying subscribers have found F2P worth their time?
The Market is speaking. You do not have sensitive enough ears to listen to it.
Subsequently, the "many" people you speak of (that feel F2P is worth their time), is a small percentile of the MMORPG space.
To my knowledge, no one has done any statistics that determine what former WoW players are now playing. As such, there isnt any reason to believe that they are playing any more/any less F2P than non former WoW players.
The only indications that we have (from any of a number of commonly reported sources) is that F2P is both growing in volume, and makeing more money each year. Do you have anything to point at to indicate otherwise? (i.e. is everyone missing something?)
You're probably right. But everyone (well, in development at least) is still missing something. Where's the alternative?
I know there are other styles of games, but the primary level grind design is the same as WoW offers for game play. There's things that go along with level grind like zoned content and fixed adventures (quests) that aren't really much in the way of "adventure" since you know what it is and what's coming next. And there's nothing made even close to "well made" and worth playing as an alternative.
Out of 10 million North American WoW players, how many of those previous paying subscribers have found F2P worth their time?
The Market is speaking. You do not have sensitive enough ears to listen to it.
Subsequently, the "many" people you speak of (that feel F2P is worth their time), is a small percentile of the MMORPG space.
To my knowledge, no one has done any statistics that determine what former WoW players are now playing. As such, there isnt any reason to believe that they are playing any more/any less F2P than non former WoW players.
The only indications that we have (from any of a number of commonly reported sources) is that F2P is both growing in volume, and makeing more money each year. Do you have anything to point at to indicate otherwise? (i.e. is everyone missing something?)
You're probably right. But everyone (well, in development at least) is still missing something. Where's the alternative?
I know there are other styles of games, but the primary level grind design is the same as WoW offers for game play. There's things that go along with level grind like zoned content and fixed adventures (quests) that aren't really much in the way of "adventure" since you know what it is and what's coming next. And there's nothing made even close to "well made" and worth playing as an alternative.
I disagree that there is not unique content out there.... but it is often not seen as comparable (because it is different). I could easily list many types of different games (FPS, MOBA, Social, etc) that dont have the same design as WoW.... but you would not see them as a replacement for WoW, because of the extreme differences.
I also dont see how these designs relate to Free vs Paid content. The real design difference is not in the game style, but in how it relates to multiplayer aspects. The MMO inherently benefits from the free element, as a higher number of players can add inherent advantage to a game. The use of players as content (PvP, Content Building, Social interaction, etc) benefits more from the free approach than the paid approach. This is regardless of the style of the game.
Out of 10 million North American WoW players, how many of those previous paying subscribers have found F2P worth their time?
The Market is speaking. You do not have sensitive enough ears to listen to it.
Subsequently, the "many" people you speak of (that feel F2P is worth their time), is a small percentile of the MMORPG space.
WoW didnt have 10 million North American players...try to get your facts straight [mod edit] And those who feel the way you do...is an even smaller percentile of the MMORPG space.
It is quite likely that WoW has had MORE than 10M NA players. However, it is NOT possible that they had them all at one time. The amount of people that have ever played WoW is much higher than the amount that played it at the same time.
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
This is not the first industry to go this route (SAAS). A simple example of this would be email services. At one time all free email services were decried as being lower quality (because they were free), and more costly (because of the higher cost of added services). Today they are considered the standard, with paid services still in use, but not the default standard.
Out of 10 million North American WoW players, how many of those previous paying subscribers have found F2P worth their time?
The Market is speaking. You do not have sensitive enough ears to listen to it.
Subsequently, the "many" people you speak of (that feel F2P is worth their time), is a small percentile of the MMORPG space.
WoW didnt have 10 million North American players...try to get your facts straight [mod edit]
And those who feel the way you do...is an even smaller percentile of the MMORPG space.
It is quite likely that WoW has had MORE than 10M NA players. However, it is NOT possible that they had them all at one time. The amount of people that have ever played WoW is much higher than the amount that played it at the same time.
[mod edit] That's not what Frac was saying though.
There is a point at which "price" is not an issue. This point varies with product and by individual.
An example: you are in a store buying groceries, you have left the milk till last; heading to pick it up you see an advert across the road for milk that is a penny cheaper. You carry on, say, and collect your milk. If it was a dollar cheaper though and money was tight maybe.
Applies to all products: there is a point at which price stops being the key factor. We typically make a selection based on a price band and then refine our selection based on "other stuff".
So a game may sell essentially the same number of copies - all things being equal whether it is free or costs 99c. (A lot of music and book sales happen at this price point).
The proviso - though - is "all things being equal". And they are not equal because games are often "presented" in "stores" by default by price. So the free games come up first. And whilst we are typically not bothered about spending "a little" we are not going to scroll through page after page of titles looking for "the one".
So rankings / reviews come into play. Things get subjective. Quality - however - will count.
The other key way is to get your message out: marketing campaigns.
As is oft the case proponents of F2P fail to acknowledge the negative impacts on the genre, particularly from the player perspective.
Might be very profitable for devs and even cheaper for many gamers, but the costs greatly outweigh that, at least IMO.
"negative" is subjective. From MY perspective, there is nothing negative. I can play many MMOs like free single player games for a short time. If i like that, what is the negatives?
Your not competing with free when your game is worth paying for, your competing with games that are worth paying for. F2P games are neither worth playing nor worth spending money on. The concepts cannot exist together in the same game without pissing people off. Good games don't do that.
People play F2P games for as long as they can stand it, they play until, yes they get pissed off, then they go play another F2P game.
Most gamers today have more time than money to burn, so they will spend 10x longer accomplishing what it is they need to in game over spending a little money upfront or a little money at a FIXED amount over time for access to the entire game.
F2P games are designed like scales, initially all the fun is tipped in your favor, the longer you play the more the scale moves until its tipped in the opposite way.
People usually bail off the scale after it starts tipping to far in the other direction then dive into another F2P game. But think that's okay I had fun for awhile. They had fun playing the part of the game that was totally free and still fun.
Its like always watching half a movie, then walking out when it cost 45 bucks to see the end, but that's okay because you can always go watch the start of some other movie playing down the hall for free. Cycle repeats endlessly.
Comments
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 do agree that as PC games adapt to mobile/social standards that the sub will decline, and that other forms of payment will increase. The way that people play has change, and the way that they are monetized will also have to change.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And how is WOW faring in this f2p world? Subs are down to what .. 4-5M now? Even Blizz won't produce another sub-only game (HoTS, Hearthstone, Overwatch are all f2p).
120,000 people all paying $18 a month ($216 a year), in just 2 years is $50 million. The revenues just keep going up from there. Free is not even worth the developers time, unless their game is a flop and have to resort to pulling in people for free & start fishing for weak egos..
If i were them, i would much rather make a fun couple of weeks game (which lots of successful single player games are like that ... MMORPGs should learn from that).
Clearly, many feel that f2p is worth the time, otherwise they would have not spend so many time doing it. That logic is elementary. Have anyone here kept playing a game they think is boring?
The Market is speaking. You do not have sensitive enough ears to listen to it.
Subsequently, the "many" people you speak of (that feel F2P is worth their time), is a small percentile of the MMORPG space.
Through the Cash Shop you gain Power
through Power you gain Victory.
The only indications that we have (from any of a number of commonly reported sources) is that F2P is both growing in volume, and makeing more money each year. Do you have anything to point at to indicate otherwise? (i.e. is everyone missing something?)
But everyone (well, in development at least) is still missing something.
Where's the alternative?
I know there are other styles of games, but the primary level grind design is the same as WoW offers for game play. There's things that go along with level grind like zoned content and fixed adventures (quests) that aren't really much in the way of "adventure" since you know what it is and what's coming next. And there's nothing made even close to "well made" and worth playing as an alternative.
Once upon a time....
I also dont see how these designs relate to Free vs Paid content. The real design difference is not in the game style, but in how it relates to multiplayer aspects. The MMO inherently benefits from the free element, as a higher number of players can add inherent advantage to a game. The use of players as content (PvP, Content Building, Social interaction, etc) benefits more from the free approach than the paid approach. This is regardless of the style of the game.
And those who feel the way you do...is an even smaller percentile of the MMORPG space.
Might be very profitable for devs and even cheaper for many gamers, but the costs greatly outweigh that, at least IMO.
"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
An example: you are in a store buying groceries, you have left the milk till last; heading to pick it up you see an advert across the road for milk that is a penny cheaper. You carry on, say, and collect your milk. If it was a dollar cheaper though and money was tight maybe.
Applies to all products: there is a point at which price stops being the key factor. We typically make a selection based on a price band and then refine our selection based on "other stuff".
So a game may sell essentially the same number of copies - all things being equal whether it is free or costs 99c. (A lot of music and book sales happen at this price point).
The proviso - though - is "all things being equal". And they are not equal because games are often "presented" in "stores" by default by price. So the free games come up first. And whilst we are typically not bothered about spending "a little" we are not going to scroll through page after page of titles looking for "the one".
So rankings / reviews come into play. Things get subjective. Quality - however - will count.
The other key way is to get your message out: marketing campaigns.
Your not competing with free when your game is worth paying for, your competing with games that are worth paying for. F2P games are neither worth playing nor worth spending money on. The concepts cannot exist together in the same game without pissing people off. Good games don't do that.
People play F2P games for as long as they can stand it, they play until, yes they get pissed off, then they go play another F2P game.
Most gamers today have more time than money to burn, so they will spend 10x longer accomplishing what it is they need to in game over spending a little money upfront or a little money at a FIXED amount over time for access to the entire game.
F2P games are designed like scales, initially all the fun is tipped in your favor, the longer you play the more the scale moves until its tipped in the opposite way.
People usually bail off the scale after it starts tipping to far in the other direction then dive into another F2P game. But think that's okay I had fun for awhile. They had fun playing the part of the game that was totally free and still fun.
Its like always watching half a movie, then walking out when it cost 45 bucks to see the end, but that's okay because you can always go watch the start of some other movie playing down the hall for free. Cycle repeats endlessly.