Howdy, Stranger!

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

New data settles it, F2P makes much more money than P2P

1111214161721

Comments

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by Pyatra

    I believe that there should be a model where everyone pays a subscriber fee but people who purchase $X amount from the cash shop should be allowed to play for free.  That way the ones with enough money to actually back the game (whales if you will, but I find that very derogatory) can invest in the game/cash shop in whatever form they feel like.

    Or another option is to have it f2p and if you do not purchase $X amount from the cash shop within 3 months your account should be permanently deleted.  That way if someone does decide to come back the publisher can have an influx to the cash shop as they feel the "catchup tension" to get to the "level/progress" that they were before.  This eliminates the locusts of hanging around taking free handouts from those of us willing to make cash shop purchases and also incurring extra unneeded bandwidth/server costs to the publisher.

    Are you planning to become a game dev? No one is implementing your set of rules today. I am enjoying quite a few games paying absolutely nothing.

     

  • PyatraPyatra Member Posts: 644
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Pyatra

    I believe that there should be a model where everyone pays a subscriber fee but people who purchase $X amount from the cash shop should be allowed to play for free.  That way the ones with enough money to actually back the game (whales if you will, but I find that very derogatory) can invest in the game/cash shop in whatever form they feel like.

    Or another option is to have it f2p and if you do not purchase $X amount from the cash shop within 3 months your account should be permanently deleted.  That way if someone does decide to come back the publisher can have an influx to the cash shop as they feel the "catchup tension" to get to the "level/progress" that they were before.  This eliminates the locusts of hanging around taking free handouts from those of us willing to make cash shop purchases and also incurring extra unneeded bandwidth/server costs to the publisher.

    Are you planning to become a game dev? No one is implementing your set of rules today. I am enjoying quite a few games paying absolutely nothing.

     

    It's not all about your unnecessary existence in a f2p game.  I just think it is selfish but also naïve of you to think of only yourself, it's like you can't even see the investment opportunity from the business side of things.  Secondly "devs" do what they are told to do when you pay them on salary, it has nothing to do with what they want from a business perspective.  That's why I like the f2p market, once the game is created you can reduce your development workforce to a few focused teams to keep the game running and design/implement purchasable items to also keep the game in the black. 

  • SnarlingWolfSnarlingWolf Member Posts: 2,697

    Um.................................................................

     

    Did you read the caption under that before doing your typical misinformation post about how much better F2P is doing?

     

    It says: "Top 10 online PC titles based on estimate worldwide, free to play earnings for 2013. WoW and The Old Republic are primarily subscription based titles, but also generate revenue through the sale of micro-transactions."

     

    This is a list specifically limited to online (read multiplayer) PC only titles and how much they make on their F2P side. This means all of the WoW subs aren't added in (nor the SWtOR subs). It also means no console games, no mobile, no social browser games etc.

     

    In other words there is absolutely no correlation to be drawn with that data to compare P2P to F2P. So, as usual, you misrepresented information in your attempt to convince everyone that F2P is the only right choice.

     

    Now if only I knew why you made a point of doing that instead of normally discussing things.

  • spizzspizz Member UncommonPosts: 1,971
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    reposting the link from another topic:

    http://www.superdataresearch.com/blog/us-digital-games-market/

    But the point is:

    In the top 10 money making games (and most listed here on MMORPG.com), all but ONE is sub-only (WOW).

    And wow is only #7, and making less than half compared to LoL.

    This pretty much shows that to make money, F2P beats P2P, and often you don't even need a virtual world.

     

    Yeah, but in the list only 2 mmorpgs would interest me. That would be WoW and TFC2.

     

    All these other F2P are like most on the market and they just suck. 

     

    The issue is that companies look too much to earn money instead delivering a great  game.

  • CazNeergCazNeerg Member Posts: 2,198
    Originally posted by Fractal_Analogy
    Originally posted by CazNeerg

    We know how much subs cost.  We know how many subs it would take to make more money than the games on that list.  We know that when games have sub numbers that high, they brag about them.  We know that no game other than WoW is bragging.  The conclusion from all the things we know is not a difficult one.  Every game in the MMO space that is competitive with WoW in terms of revenue is F2P.  They aren't even freemium, they are straight F2P.

    I happen to think freemium is a necessary model (long term, after the launch window milking of box sales and subs) for any new game that includes a sub, but I really, really don't like pure F2P games.  The fact that I don't like them doesn't change the reality that they can be fantastic money makers.

     Very interesting post. May I ask how you know all this..?  (Sounds like one big uneducated guess) 

    I guess this bears repeating, but I work with top MMORPG developers & work directly with such metrics, being discussed within this thread. Very few within this thread, even remotely understand what these numbers mean.

     Nothing in the MMO space is competitive with WoW in terms of sustained revenues.

    WoW is what one would call an "anomaly". When a person begins to use World of Warcraft itself, or it's business model in an argument, you have already tipped your hand; of ignorance. You isolate WoW and discuss everything else, to ferret out the true nature of the MMO space.

    The idle chatter in this thread is incredible. Even 10 year players can illustrate how skewed many of these arguments are. Yet, undaunted, same people come back with even more absurd posts, based on more opinion. Starting to think there isn't a real community here at MMORPG. 

    Is there no moderation here, no one who cares and protect this community from trolls? 

    First, the points where we agree.  WoW is certainly an anomaly, but I try to always include it when I make points about what appears to be happening in the market, because if I don't then people will whip out a mention of it as if it is some kind of trump card. And I fully agree, it would be nice if the moderators were more aggressive in dealing with people who are clearly trolling...

    Second, a question.  Where is your proof that you work with any MMORPG developers, let alone top ones?  Or that you work directly with metrics?  This being the internet, we really have no reason to believe it just because you claim it, and trying to base your argument on coming from a position of authority only works when you have actually established that you are an authority.

    As for how I "know all this," a lot of it is simple math.  The normal price for a subscription is 15/month/player.  If a player stays subscribed for a whole year, that means $180/year/player.  In order to make as much money annually from subscriptions as the number ten game on superdataresearch's list made from it's cash shop, a game would need to average more than 670,000 subscribers over the course of a year.  The only current game which we have *any* reason to believe has more subscribers than that is WoW.  

    Please, if you actually have data that contradicts my analysis, or contradicts superdataresearch's numbers, share it with us.  That would give you a lot more credibility than making posts with lots of words that boil down to telling us "I am an expert, and you are wrong" without actually including any content.

    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.

  • GaendricGaendric Member UncommonPosts: 618

    Stop using that silly list :p

    Seriously, what are we talking about here? 

    That F2P is better if a dev wants to make a MOBA or FPS or Beat'em'Up or 2D Kids game?

    Wrong forum. :)

     

    If we focus on MMORPGs that list actually doesn't show F2P favorably at all. 

    It has 1 "made for F2P" game, and that is basically a 2D game for a young audience.

    Lineage ran for a really long time with high sub numbers. (up to 3mil at a certain point), hardly a good example for "launch F2P!"

    WoW isn't an F2P game, nor is SWTOR (hybrid).

     

    Anyway, I like F2P and I do think it is highly profitable. 

    This whole "mine is bigger than yours" discussion is pointless and we have to see any applicable data so far.

    All I am saying is stop using bogus data to back up made up claims.

    Thanks from all of us.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by spizz

    Yeah, but in the list only 2 mmorpgs would interest me. That would be WoW and TFC2.

     

    All these other F2P are like most on the market and they just suck. 

     

    The issue is that companies look too much to earn money instead delivering a great  game.

    That is just you. You don't think LoL is a great game? Many long time players would disagree.

    The point is that what you (one person) like is irrelevant to the devs. They look at the market and see what the mass audience will like. Don't tell me you don't think no one likes LoL.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by Gaendric

    That F2P is better if a dev wants to make a MOBA or FPS or Beat'em'Up or 2D Kids game?

    Wrong forum. :)

    nah .. LoL is discussed here on a daily basis. And MMORPGs are competing with those games for players' attention anyway. Don't tell me you don't think the WoT and WoW audience overlaps.

     

  • GaendricGaendric Member UncommonPosts: 618

    Bleh, forum killed it. Anyway: 

     

    "The Pub at MMORPG.COM

    Use this forum to talk about MMORPGs. Please stay on the topic about MMORPGs and use the "off-topic" forum for unrelated posts."

  • CazNeergCazNeerg Member Posts: 2,198
    Originally posted by Gaendric

    Stop using that silly list :p

    Seriously, what are we talking about here? 

    That F2P is better if a dev wants to make a MOBA or FPS or Beat'em'Up or 2D Kids game?

    Wrong forum. :) 

    If we focus on MMORPGs that list actually doesn't show F2P favorably at all. 

    It has 1 "made for F2P" game, and that is basically a 2D game for a young audience.

    Lineage ran for a really long time with high sub numbers. (up to 3mil at a certain point), hardly a good example for "launch F2P!"

    WoW isn't an F2P game, nor is SWTOR (hybrid). 

    Anyway, I like F2P and I do think it is highly profitable. 

    This whole "mine is bigger than yours" discussion is pointless and we have to see any applicable data so far.

    All I am saying is stop using bogus data to back up made up claims.

    Thanks from all of us.

    Mine and yours?  I know I am not a game developer.  Are you?

    The point is that every one of the games on the list is reported to make more money just from it's cash shop than a sub-based game would make from less than roughly an annual average of 672,000 (western priced) subscribers.  Are you aware of a data source which indicates some game other than WoW currently can claim that many subs?  I'm not, and if WoW really is the only one, it appears to be the case that a popular cash shop makes far more money than subs do, unless you are the admitted anomaly known as WoW.

    In a discussion of money, the most relevant portion of a F2P game isn't even the free, it's the cash shop.  Something which both WoW and TOR have, and on which both are making more money than other games do from their subs, before even factoring in their own sub revenue.  Please, explain to me how it is logical at this point to assume F2P (cash shops) doesn't make much more money than P2P (subs)?

    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.

  • GaendricGaendric Member UncommonPosts: 618
    Originally posted by CazNeerg

    In a discussion of money, the most relevant portion of a F2P game isn't even the free, it's the cash shop.  Something which both WoW and TOR have, and on which both are making more money than other games do from their subs, before even factoring in their own sub revenue.  Please, explain to me how it is logical at this point to assume F2P (cash shops) doesn't make much more money than P2P (subs)?

    You need to brush up on your terminology.

    cash shop != F2P

     

    Listing WoW (or it's shop) as F2P is /facepalm-worthy.

     

    This applies to a hybrid like SWTOR too btw. Unless you have data that shows all their shop income is from the free players and not from the subbers.

    Then again.. meaningful data is not one of the strengths of this thread.

     

    disclaimer:

    I think F2P is very successful. I play F2P games. I like F2P.

    I do not like people using bogus data and logical fallacies to "prove" made up "facts" though.

     

  • CazNeergCazNeerg Member Posts: 2,198
    Originally posted by Gaendric

    You need to brush up on your terminology.

    cash shop != F2P

     Listing WoW (or it's shop) as F2P is /facepalm-worthy.

     This applies to a hybrid like SWTOR too btw. Unless you have data that shows all their shop income is from the free players and not from the subbers.

    Then again.. meaningful data is not one of the strengths of this thread.

     disclaimer:

    I think F2P is very successful. I play F2P games. I like F2P.

    I do not like people using bogus data and logical fallacies to "prove" made up "facts" though. 

    You are splitting hairs.  The revenue source for F2P games is cash shops.  The industry standard is to report cash shop revenue as F2P revenue, even if it's from a game that has subs.

    If the thread title had said "New data settles it, cash shops make much more money than subscriptions" would you still be arguing?

    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.

  • SirPKsAlotSirPKsAlot Member Posts: 224
    Originally posted by CazNeerg

    If the thread title had said "New data settles it, cash shops make much more money than subscriptions" would you still be arguing?

    maybe that should've been the title

    image
    Currently playing: Eldevin Online as a Deadly Assassin

  • Kevyne-ShandrisKevyne-Shandris Member UncommonPosts: 2,077
    Originally posted by CazNeerg
    Originally posted by William12
     

    Them numbers are fake. 

    Lets assume wow has 4m NA/Eu players at $15 a month thats 60m in revenue every month so how did wow not make $720+m in revenue ? That chart is revenue not profit so wows numbers should be way higher. 

    In fact the chart says based on free to play earnings and wow is not f2p so how is it even on the list ?

    Read the whole page before you say the numbers are fake.  It specifically states that the numbers are strictly for the F2P portions of game earnings, they don't include sub revenue.  All cash shop revenue is reported as F2P, and WoW does have one of those.

    Folks tend to forget, Blizzard always had a cash shop.

    When the sparkle pony (ha!) was released...one day of sales reached $25,000,000 alone.

    When Blizzard releases something players like they will buy it, and with that many players it's instant cash F2P games can only dream over.

    Offerings of late are "meh" (not really into mounts and pets). I'm waiting for more appearance armor sets, that are as good as the paladin T10 or better.

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 11,787

    One of sales like the WoW mounts show how unreliable these figures are. This must be the fourth thread Nari has done on this, each time serious questions are raised about the data.

    No company want's their entire financial situation exposed either to the public or sites like the one shown who collect such data. So a degree of uncertainty Is built into anything these figures show.

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • spizzspizz Member UncommonPosts: 1,971
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by spizz

    Yeah, but in the list only 2 mmorpgs would interest me. That would be WoW and TFC2.

     

    All these other F2P are like most on the market and they just suck. 

     

    The issue is that companies look too much to earn money instead delivering a great  game.

    That is just you. You don't think LoL is a great game? Many long time players would disagree.

    The point is that what you (one person) like is irrelevant to the devs. They look at the market and see what the mass audience will like. Don't tell me you don't think no one likes LoL.

     

     

    Last week I did play the first time League of Legends, I was bored after 2 hours already. What a flat game, it isnt even an mmo.

  • Fractal_AnalogyFractal_Analogy Member UncommonPosts: 350
    Originally posted by CazNeerg
    Originally posted by Fractal_Analogy
    Originally posted by CazNeerg

    We know how much subs cost.  We know how many subs it would take to make more money than the games on that list.  We know that when games have sub numbers that high, they brag about them.  We know that no game other than WoW is bragging.  The conclusion from all the things we know is not a difficult one.  Every game in the MMO space that is competitive with WoW in terms of revenue is F2P.  They aren't even freemium, they are straight F2P.

    I happen to think freemium is a necessary model (long term, after the launch window milking of box sales and subs) for any new game that includes a sub, but I really, really don't like pure F2P games.  The fact that I don't like them doesn't change the reality that they can be fantastic money makers.

     Very interesting post. May I ask how you know all this..?  (Sounds like one big uneducated guess) 

    I guess this bears repeating, but I work with top MMORPG developers & work directly with such metrics, being discussed within this thread. Very few within this thread, even remotely understand what these numbers mean.

     Nothing in the MMO space is competitive with WoW in terms of sustained revenues.

    WoW is what one would call an "anomaly". When a person begins to use World of Warcraft itself, or it's business model in an argument, you have already tipped your hand; of ignorance. You isolate WoW and discuss everything else, to ferret out the true nature of the MMO space.

    The idle chatter in this thread is incredible. Even 10 year players can illustrate how skewed many of these arguments are. Yet, undaunted, same people come back with even more absurd posts, based on more opinion. Starting to think there isn't a real community here at MMORPG. 

    Is there no moderation here, no one who cares and protect this community from trolls? 

    First, the points where we agree.  WoW is certainly an anomaly, but I try to always include it when I make points about what appears to be happening in the market, because if I don't then people will whip out a mention of it as if it is some kind of trump card. And I fully agree, it would be nice if the moderators were more aggressive in dealing with people who are clearly trolling...

    Second, a question.  Where is your proof that you work with any MMORPG developers, let alone top ones?  Or that you work directly with metrics?  This being the internet, we really have no reason to believe it just because you claim it, and trying to base your argument on coming from a position of authority only works when you have actually established that you are an authority.

    As for how I "know all this," a lot of it is simple math.  The normal price for a subscription is 15/month/player.  If a player stays subscribed for a whole year, that means $180/year/player.  In order to make as much money annually from subscriptions as the number ten game on superdataresearch's list made from it's cash shop, a game would need to average more than 670,000 subscribers over the course of a year.  The only current game which we have *any* reason to believe has more subscribers than that is WoW.  

    Please, if you actually have data that contradicts my analysis, or contradicts superdataresearch's numbers, share it with us.  That would give you a lot more credibility than making posts with lots of words that boil down to telling us "I am an expert, and you are wrong" without actually including any content.

     

    Again, when you mention WoW, all you are doing is tipping your hand that you have no other data, or source of point to discuss. It reveals much about the posters actual insight. (Ie: Gibberish)

    Secondly, you are under the assumption I have an agenda, or have even discussed these #'s..  I have not yet, because of all the false data. I have only attempted to bring levity and sanity to this discussing, so that we can BEGINE to discuss these figures... without bias.

     

     

    As for your "math" (another very odd example of non-statistica):  

    Are you trying to establish that only games with 670,000 players are the only games worth playing, or that F2P games are better than games with 120,000 players..? What are you really saying?

    You are mixing & matching two distinct metrics & playing games with numbers. Anyone can do that.

     

    This data all goes back to an earlier post of mine, based on what the Developers demographics is/are...  whom.. are these Developers targeting with their game? What type of business model they choose is directly related to the type of customer they want.

    Age, income level, education, etc... all play a role in their marketing.

     

    From a Business standpoint: Metrics

    You cannot have a discussing about these metrics, without first discussing the demographics of each. Once that is established, you can THEN discuss the metrics.

    Additi9nally, there is a common misconception/misdirection within this thread, that Free-to-Play business model & Subscription based model, serve the same populace, or player type & end-user. This is a false misconception & an ignorant mistake.

    I cannot legally give additional data, or numbers because I am under contract. But even using several sources one can easily determine that a SINGLE person can have/play 2~7 FREE games.  thus inflating the over-all numbers of players who actually play in the MMO space. (They count the same people not twice, but multiple times in the F2P arena, falsely inflating their numbers & the F2P market space.)

     

    For example, when discussing FREE TO PLAY (ie: business model), you have to mention the PEOPLE who play those free to play games. One must then mine that data, to find out why these people are playing FREE games. More often than not, it is because it was simply free, not because they like it, or even want to play it...  it was just because it's FREE to try, so why not?

    Obviously, no game can survive without revenues, so that is why you have to focus on the PEOPLE who play F2P games,  (vs Subs). You have to follow the revenue stream to it's source.

     

     

    A new hope:

    So, can we have an actual civil discussion about what each represents, before you attempt to extrapolate the data? 

    Because, it is humorous to witness others claim that F2P is compatible with Subscription (vice-versa)...   as they serve different PEOPLE & different segments. There is too much bias here, as if..  one business model is better than the other.

     

     

     

     

  • CecropiaCecropia Member RarePosts: 3,972
    Originally posted by Fractal_Analogy
    Originally posted by CazNeerg
    Originally posted by Fractal_Analogy
    Originally posted by CazNeerg

    We know how much subs cost.  We know how many subs it would take to make more money than the games on that list.  We know that when games have sub numbers that high, they brag about them.  We know that no game other than WoW is bragging.  The conclusion from all the things we know is not a difficult one.  Every game in the MMO space that is competitive with WoW in terms of revenue is F2P.  They aren't even freemium, they are straight F2P.

    I happen to think freemium is a necessary model (long term, after the launch window milking of box sales and subs) for any new game that includes a sub, but I really, really don't like pure F2P games.  The fact that I don't like them doesn't change the reality that they can be fantastic money makers.

     Very interesting post. May I ask how you know all this..?  (Sounds like one big uneducated guess) 

    I guess this bears repeating, but I work with top MMORPG developers & work directly with such metrics, being discussed within this thread. Very few within this thread, even remotely understand what these numbers mean.

     Nothing in the MMO space is competitive with WoW in terms of sustained revenues.

    WoW is what one would call an "anomaly". When a person begins to use World of Warcraft itself, or it's business model in an argument, you have already tipped your hand; of ignorance. You isolate WoW and discuss everything else, to ferret out the true nature of the MMO space.

    The idle chatter in this thread is incredible. Even 10 year players can illustrate how skewed many of these arguments are. Yet, undaunted, same people come back with even more absurd posts, based on more opinion. Starting to think there isn't a real community here at MMORPG. 

    Is there no moderation here, no one who cares and protect this community from trolls? 

    First, the points where we agree.  WoW is certainly an anomaly, but I try to always include it when I make points about what appears to be happening in the market, because if I don't then people will whip out a mention of it as if it is some kind of trump card. And I fully agree, it would be nice if the moderators were more aggressive in dealing with people who are clearly trolling...

    Second, a question.  Where is your proof that you work with any MMORPG developers, let alone top ones?  Or that you work directly with metrics?  This being the internet, we really have no reason to believe it just because you claim it, and trying to base your argument on coming from a position of authority only works when you have actually established that you are an authority.

    As for how I "know all this," a lot of it is simple math.  The normal price for a subscription is 15/month/player.  If a player stays subscribed for a whole year, that means $180/year/player.  In order to make as much money annually from subscriptions as the number ten game on superdataresearch's list made from it's cash shop, a game would need to average more than 670,000 subscribers over the course of a year.  The only current game which we have *any* reason to believe has more subscribers than that is WoW.  

    Please, if you actually have data that contradicts my analysis, or contradicts superdataresearch's numbers, share it with us.  That would give you a lot more credibility than making posts with lots of words that boil down to telling us "I am an expert, and you are wrong" without actually including any content.

     

    Again, when you mention WoW, all you are doing is tipping your hand that you have no other data, or source of point to discuss. It reveals much about the posters actual insight. (Ie: Gibberish)

    Secondly, you are under the assumption I have an agenda, or have even discussed these #'s..  I have not yet, because of all the false data. I have only attempted to bring levity and sanity to this discussing, so that we can BEGINE to discuss these figures... without bias.

     

     

    As for your "math" (another very odd example of non-statistica):  

    Are you trying to establish that only games with 670,000 players are the only games worth playing, or that F2P games are better than games with 120,000 players..? What are you really saying?

    You are mixing & matching two distinct metrics & playing games with numbers. Anyone can do that.

     

    This data all goes back to an earlier post of mine, based on what the Developers demographics is/are...  whom.. are these Developers targeting with their game? What type of business model they choose is directly related to the type of customer they want.

    Age, income level, education, etc... all play a role in their marketing.

     

    From a Business standpoint: Metrics

    You cannot have a discussing about these metrics, without first discussing the demographics of each. Once that is established, you can THEN discuss the metrics.

    Additi9nally, there is a common misconception/misdirection within this thread, that Free-to-Play business model & Subscription based model, serve the same populace, or player type & end-user. This is a false misconception & an ignorant mistake.

    I cannot legally give additional data, or numbers because I am under contract. But even using several sources one can easily determine that a SINGLE person can have/play 2~7 FREE games.  thus inflating the over-all numbers of players who actually play in the MMO space. (They count the same people not twice, but multiple times in the F2P arena, falsely inflating their numbers & the F2P market space.)

     

    For example, when discussing FREE TO PLAY (ie: business model), you have to mention the PEOPLE who play those free to play games. One must then mine that data, to find out why these people are playing FREE games. More often than not, it is because it was simply free, not because they like it, or even want to play it...  it was just because it's FREE to try, so why not?

    Obviously, no game can survive without revenues, so that is why you have to focus on the PEOPLE who play F2P games,  (vs Subs). You have to follow the revenue stream to it's source.

     

     

    A new hope:

    So, can we have an actual civil discussion about what each represents, before you attempt to extrapolate the data? 

    Because, it is humorous to witness others claim that F2P is compatible with Subscription (vice-versa)...   as they serve different PEOPLE & different segments. There is too much bias here, as if..  one business model is better than the other.

    Funny that the OP continues to ignore this member, especially considering his profession and expertise deals directly with the OPs favorite topic. 

    Fascinating :)

    "Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb

  • GaendricGaendric Member UncommonPosts: 618

    Some people are living in a different dimension.

    In that dimension posts that don't agree with them and actually offer real arguments just show up as "Goo goo bah bah lalalalalala sproink sproink ...".

     

  • Kevyne-ShandrisKevyne-Shandris Member UncommonPosts: 2,077
    Originally posted by Fractal_Analogy
    I cannot legally give additional data, or numbers because I am under contract. But even using several sources one can easily determine that a SINGLE person can have/play 2~7 FREE games.  thus inflating the over-all numbers of players who actually play in the MMO space. (They count the same people not twice, but multiple times in the F2P arena, falsely inflating their numbers & the F2P market space.)

    That's been a point I've been saying for years...

     

    MMORPGs, in actuality, is a small genre. All those millions that play WoW also play the other MMOs.

     

    There isn't 10s of millions of MMO gamers that only play one game, each MMO shares their gamers.

     

    WoW has the millions as it's a fixture in MMOs...it's always be "home" that players can come back too, kicking or screaming even.

  • CazNeergCazNeerg Member Posts: 2,198
    Originally posted by Fractal_Analogy

     Again, when you mention WoW, all you are doing is tipping your hand that you have no other data, or source of point to discuss. It reveals much about the posters actual insight. (Ie: Gibberish)

    Secondly, you are under the assumption I have an agenda, or have even discussed these #'s..  I have not yet, because of all the false data. I have only attempted to bring levity and sanity to this discussing, so that we can BEGINE to discuss these figures... without bias. 

    As for your "math" (another very odd example of non-statistica):  

    Are you trying to establish that only games with 670,000 players are the only games worth playing, or that F2P games are better than games with 120,000 players..? What are you really saying?

    You are mixing & matching two distinct metrics & playing games with numbers. Anyone can do that. 

    This data all goes back to an earlier post of mine, based on what the Developers demographics is/are...  whom.. are these Developers targeting with their game? What type of business model they choose is directly related to the type of customer they want.

    Age, income level, education, etc... all play a role in their marketing. 

    From a Business standpoint: Metrics

    You cannot have a discussing about these metrics, without first discussing the demographics of each. Once that is established, you can THEN discuss the metrics.

    Additi9nally, there is a common misconception/misdirection within this thread, that Free-to-Play business model & Subscription based model, serve the same populace, or player type & end-user. This is a false misconception & an ignorant mistake.

    I cannot legally give additional data, or numbers because I am under contract. But even using several sources one can easily determine that a SINGLE person can have/play 2~7 FREE games.  thus inflating the over-all numbers of players who actually play in the MMO space. (They count the same people not twice, but multiple times in the F2P arena, falsely inflating their numbers & the F2P market space.) 

    For example, when discussing FREE TO PLAY (ie: business model), you have to mention the PEOPLE who play those free to play games. One must then mine that data, to find out why these people are playing FREE games. More often than not, it is because it was simply free, not because they like it, or even want to play it...  it was just because it's FREE to try, so why not?

    Obviously, no game can survive without revenues, so that is why you have to focus on the PEOPLE who play F2P games,  (vs Subs). You have to follow the revenue stream to it's source. 

    A new hope:

    So, can we have an actual civil discussion about what each represents, before you attempt to extrapolate the data? 

    Because, it is humorous to witness others claim that F2P is compatible with Subscription (vice-versa)...   as they serve different PEOPLE & different segments. There is too much bias here, as if..  one business model is better than the other. 

    It's not about one model being "better," it's about whether F2P (cash shops) bring in more revenue than P2P (subscriptions.)  "Better" is a value judgment, and completely irrelevant.  We're talking about numbers.  Do we have direct access to all the relevant data?  No.  But we do have this report, which as far as I can tell is the most reliable comprehensive look at the numbers in question which is available to the public.  Do you have a specific reason to doubt  that this is the case?  If so, please, as I have already asked you multiple times, tell us what the superior source is (and why it is superior) so that we can work from it instead.

    Speaking in terms of the topic of the thread, you really seem to be aiming beyond the scope.  This isn't about the number of people who play.  It isn't about the markets being targeted.  It's not about how many different games people play.  It isn't about metrics.  All of those things will impact decisions during the design process, but we aren't talking about a comprehensive analysis of the decisions that go into designing games, we are only talking about which model (in the abstract) tends to bring in more revenue.

    As a practical matter, the real question is when a developer is creating a new game, looking at how the market currently behaves, is it smarter to design the game in a way that aims for maximizing cash shop revenue, maximizing subscription revenue, or some mix of the two.  If we assume that the numbers from superdataresearch are even in the ballpark as far as accuracy goes, it seems fairly clear that the smart play is either cash shop only (F2P) or cash shop + subscription (Hybrid.)  It appears to be the case that relying solely on subs (which not even WoW does, yes, I mentioned it again) leaves a lot of money on the table, when you have a large enough player base to justify the cost of implementing a well done cash shop.

    If we assume that the numbers from superdatareserach are not remotely accurate, then I'm not sure what basis we even have for attempting to have a discussion, without some alternative starting point rooted in something other than opinions and/or data sets posters aren't allowed to share.

    As for me, I am saying nothing about what is worth playing.  I am just pointing out how many subs a game which charges the traditional rate would need to have if subscriptions were it's only revenue source in order to achieve a comparable level of revenue to least successful cash shop on the provided chart.  Which games are "better" is entirely subjective, personally there is only one game on that whole list I would play, but it's not about my preferences, or yours, or anybody else's.  It's just about the revenue.

    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.

  • DrakynnDrakynn Member Posts: 2,030
    Originally posted by Scot

    One of sales like the WoW mounts show how unreliable these figures are. This must be the fourth thread Nari has done on this, each time serious questions are raised about the data.

    No company want's their entire financial situation exposed either to the public or sites like the one shown who collect such data. So a degree of uncertainty Is built into anything these figures show.

    As people love to point out Data doesn't lie.

    However interpretation of Data done with personal bias and narrow analysis of facts behind the data gathering do inadvertently or in some cases purposely do lie.

    This applies to both sides of the argument over the data.People see what they want to see.

     

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

    It's not about one model being "better," it's about whether F2P (cash shops) bring in more revenue than P2P (subscriptions.)  "Better" is a value judgment, and completely irrelevant.  We're talking about numbers.  Do we have direct access to all the relevant data?  No.  But we do have this report, which as far as I can tell is the most reliable comprehensive look at the numbers in question which is available to the public.  Do you have a specific reason to doubt  that this is the case?  If so, please, as I have already asked you multiple times, tell us what the superior source is (and why it is superior) so that we can work from it instead.

    What I posted above about Blizzard always had a cash shop, and folks ignoring that fact, makes such F2P "stats" meaningless.

     

    Why?

     

    Because to hype F2P as a means to make more money, the stat jugglers have to ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room -- who already had a cash shop even before the F2P craze.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    Originally posted by Fractal_Analogy
    Originally posted by CazNeerg
    Originally posted by Fractal_Analogy
    Originally posted by CazNeerg

    We know how much subs cost.  We know how many subs it would take to make more money than the games on that list.  We know that when games have sub numbers that high, they brag about them.  We know that no game other than WoW is bragging.  The conclusion from all the things we know is not a difficult one.  Every game in the MMO space that is competitive with WoW in terms of revenue is F2P.  They aren't even freemium, they are straight F2P.

    I happen to think freemium is a necessary model (long term, after the launch window milking of box sales and subs) for any new game that includes a sub, but I really, really don't like pure F2P games.  The fact that I don't like them doesn't change the reality that they can be fantastic money makers.

     Very interesting post. May I ask how you know all this..?  (Sounds like one big uneducated guess) 

    I guess this bears repeating, but I work with top MMORPG developers & work directly with such metrics, being discussed within this thread. Very few within this thread, even remotely understand what these numbers mean.

     Nothing in the MMO space is competitive with WoW in terms of sustained revenues.

    WoW is what one would call an "anomaly". When a person begins to use World of Warcraft itself, or it's business model in an argument, you have already tipped your hand; of ignorance. You isolate WoW and discuss everything else, to ferret out the true nature of the MMO space.

    The idle chatter in this thread is incredible. Even 10 year players can illustrate how skewed many of these arguments are. Yet, undaunted, same people come back with even more absurd posts, based on more opinion. Starting to think there isn't a real community here at MMORPG. 

    Is there no moderation here, no one who cares and protect this community from trolls? 

    First, the points where we agree.  WoW is certainly an anomaly, but I try to always include it when I make points about what appears to be happening in the market, because if I don't then people will whip out a mention of it as if it is some kind of trump card. And I fully agree, it would be nice if the moderators were more aggressive in dealing with people who are clearly trolling...

    Second, a question.  Where is your proof that you work with any MMORPG developers, let alone top ones?  Or that you work directly with metrics?  This being the internet, we really have no reason to believe it just because you claim it, and trying to base your argument on coming from a position of authority only works when you have actually established that you are an authority.

    As for how I "know all this," a lot of it is simple math.  The normal price for a subscription is 15/month/player.  If a player stays subscribed for a whole year, that means $180/year/player.  In order to make as much money annually from subscriptions as the number ten game on superdataresearch's list made from it's cash shop, a game would need to average more than 670,000 subscribers over the course of a year.  The only current game which we have *any* reason to believe has more subscribers than that is WoW.  

    Please, if you actually have data that contradicts my analysis, or contradicts superdataresearch's numbers, share it with us.  That would give you a lot more credibility than making posts with lots of words that boil down to telling us "I am an expert, and you are wrong" without actually including any content.

     

    Again, when you mention WoW, all you are doing is tipping your hand that you have no other data, or source of point to discuss. It reveals much about the posters actual insight. (Ie: Gibberish)

    Secondly, you are under the assumption I have an agenda, or have even discussed these #'s..  I have not yet, because of all the false data. I have only attempted to bring levity and sanity to this discussing, so that we can BEGINE to discuss these figures... without bias.

     

     

    As for your "math" (another very odd example of non-statistica):  

    Are you trying to establish that only games with 670,000 players are the only games worth playing, or that F2P games are better than games with 120,000 players..? What are you really saying?

    You are mixing & matching two distinct metrics & playing games with numbers. Anyone can do that.

     

    This data all goes back to an earlier post of mine, based on what the Developers demographics is/are...  whom.. are these Developers targeting with their game? What type of business model they choose is directly related to the type of customer they want.

    Age, income level, education, etc... all play a role in their marketing.

     

    From a Business standpoint: Metrics

    You cannot have a discussing about these metrics, without first discussing the demographics of each. Once that is established, you can THEN discuss the metrics.

    Additi9nally, there is a common misconception/misdirection within this thread, that Free-to-Play business model & Subscription based model, serve the same populace, or player type & end-user. This is a false misconception & an ignorant mistake.

    I cannot legally give additional data, or numbers because I am under contract. But even using several sources one can easily determine that a SINGLE person can have/play 2~7 FREE games.  thus inflating the over-all numbers of players who actually play in the MMO space. (They count the same people not twice, but multiple times in the F2P arena, falsely inflating their numbers & the F2P market space.)

     

    For example, when discussing FREE TO PLAY (ie: business model), you have to mention the PEOPLE who play those free to play games. One must then mine that data, to find out why these people are playing FREE games. More often than not, it is because it was simply free, not because they like it, or even want to play it...  it was just because it's FREE to try, so why not?

    Obviously, no game can survive without revenues, so that is why you have to focus on the PEOPLE who play F2P games,  (vs Subs). You have to follow the revenue stream to it's source.

     

     

    A new hope:

    So, can we have an actual civil discussion about what each represents, before you attempt to extrapolate the data? 

    Because, it is humorous to witness others claim that F2P is compatible with Subscription (vice-versa)...   as they serve different PEOPLE & different segments. There is too much bias here, as if..  one business model is better than the other.

     

    I find it hard to believe that someone working "in the industry" is taking such pains to make sure people know they work "in the industry" while at the same time not providing any actual insight.  This doesn't indicate anything in particular except your behavior seems to deviate from the behavior of other people that are known to work "in the industry" who also post on these forums.  If someone looks at you weird on these forums, that's why.

     

    It's entirely possible for the same person to play one game using only the F2P aspects of the game, and play another game using a subscription.  If the same people play several different games (as you said) it seems likely that the same people would use different monetization systems.  In some cases they must use different monetization systems since not all games use the same system.  Your model above doesn't seem to account for this and it in not doing so contradicts itself a bit.

     

    Anyway, the discussion is about the numbers presented.  Since there's no information on the people who make up those numbers, it seems a little pointless to try and direct the conversation to be about those people on which there's no information to present, and which you are unwilling to present information for.

     

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

  • SuperNickSuperNick Member UncommonPosts: 460

    36 pages to discuss some skewered statistics based on stats they don't really have. Wonderful.

    To think that WoW is ANYWHERE but #1 on that list taints the entire results and how they were formed.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.