Originally posted by Sukiyaki Just the 2 top F2P games make more than all the dozen P2P based games combined.
May I ask how the other 700+ F2P games are doing, by comparison? Or do the few speak for the whole?
Good question. F2P, just like P2P has most of the earnings consolidated in the top few games... However, the dropoff for F2P is much less severe than in P2P. This means that if you were to compare top earner #50/100/300/700 you would see that the F2P game is making more than the P2P comparable. In fact the factor by which F2P outearns P2P actually gets GREATER as you go lower on the chart.
May I ask how the other 700+ F2P games are doing, by comparison? Or do the few speak for the whole?
May i ask how the sub only games other than WOW is doing? ... wait ... there aren't many left. Most converted to f2p already.
and yes, the few speak for the whole. It is a winner takes all market. When you get a mobile phone game, do you care about the millions which are crap, or just the top couple of hundreds which you don't have time to finish anyway?
You cut out most of his post, then focused on the only line you wanted to address, then asked a question that was answered in the very next line of his post......the 1st line you deleted.
Not much at all. Superdata receives nothing from these companies that isn't public available and can be accessed by any average joe
Lol .. as if you know how superdata operates.
If you actually go to read their website .. and I quote:
"Using our proprietary data set—pulled directly from publishers and developers—on millions of paying digital gamers, we establish monthly benchmarks such as ARPPU, conversion rates, lifetime value, and revenues."
I am an average joe, please show me how to access that data set, which is directly pulled from publishers and developers.
May I ask how the other 700+ F2P games are doing, by comparison? Or do the few speak for the whole?
May i ask how the sub only games other than WOW is doing? ... wait ... there aren't many left. Most converted to f2p already.
and yes, the few speak for the whole. It is a winner takes all market. When you get a mobile phone game, do you care about the millions which are crap, or just the top couple of hundreds which you don't have time to finish anyway?
You cut out most of his post, then focused on the only line you wanted to address, then asked a question that was answered in the very next line of his post......the 1st line you deleted.
It's funny how he ignores any posts that genuinely challenge him.
"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
May I ask how the other 700+ F2P games are doing, by comparison? Or do the few speak for the whole?
May i ask how the sub only games other than WOW is doing? ... wait ... there aren't many left. Most converted to f2p already.
and yes, the few speak for the whole. It is a winner takes all market. When you get a mobile phone game, do you care about the millions which are crap, or just the top couple of hundreds which you don't have time to finish anyway?
Actually you care about what makes you money, provided you have any business sense at all.
All of these different financial configurations make a profit, some just do it in different ways. Some in big bites, some in little nibbles, some in both. So that means any competent company with a worthwhile product will make money regardless of what financial model they use. So you create a product and market it accordingly. A smart business would diversify as much as possible to maximize customer base and profit margin, and not put all of its financial eggs in one basket.
Blizzard has proven that they can make an obscene amount of profit with the subscription model via brand recognition. ArenaNet with Guild Wars Two proved you could also do quite well without one. Riot Games showed the world that a gigantic many years in creation MMORPG wasn't the only way people wanted to play online games. As did Zynga and King with Farmville and Candy Crush Saga.
What they haven't proven is that only one type of game monetization strategy is better, but that all of them marketed correctly will make a net profit.
Not even Jove can please all, whether he rains or does not rain.
May I ask how the other 700+ F2P games are doing, by comparison? Or do the few speak for the whole?
May i ask how the sub only games other than WOW is doing? ... wait ... there aren't many left. Most converted to f2p already.
and yes, the few speak for the whole. It is a winner takes all market. When you get a mobile phone game, do you care about the millions which are crap, or just the top couple of hundreds which you don't have time to finish anyway?
Actually you care about what makes you money, provided you have any business sense at all.
All of these different financial configurations make a profit, some just do it in different ways. Some in big bites, some in little nibbles, some in both. So that means any competent company with a worthwhile product will make money regardless of what financial model they use. So you create a product and market it accordingly. A smart business would diversify as much as possible to maximize customer base and profit margin, and not put all of its financial eggs in one basket.
Blizzard has proven that they can make an obscene amount of profit with the subscription model via brand recognition. ArenaNet with Guild Wars Two proved you could also do quite well without one. Riot Games showed the world that a gigantic many years in creation MMORPG wasn't the only way people wanted to play online games. As did Zynga and King with Farmville and Candy Crush Saga.
What they haven't proven is that only one type of game monetization strategy is better, but that all of them marketed correctly will make a net profit.
Wow. That's a discussion ending post; not that that's going to happen, lol, but still. You should really hit the "post message" button more often.
"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
May I ask how the other 700+ F2P games are doing, by comparison? Or do the few speak for the whole?
May i ask how the sub only games other than WOW is doing? ... wait ... there aren't many left. Most converted to f2p already.
and yes, the few speak for the whole. It is a winner takes all market. When you get a mobile phone game, do you care about the millions which are crap, or just the top couple of hundreds which you don't have time to finish anyway?
Actually you care about what makes you money, provided you have any business sense at all.
All of these different financial configurations make a profit, some just do it in different ways. Some in big bites, some in little nibbles, some in both. So that means any competent company with a worthwhile product will make money regardless of what financial model they use. So you create a product and market it accordingly. A smart business would diversify as much as possible to maximize customer base and profit margin, and not put all of its financial eggs in one basket.
Blizzard has proven that they can make an obscene amount of profit with the subscription model via brand recognition. ArenaNet with Guild Wars Two proved you could also do quite well without one. Riot Games showed the world that a gigantic many years in creation MMORPG wasn't the only way people wanted to play online games. As did Zynga and King with Farmville and Candy Crush Saga.
What they haven't proven is that only one type of game monetization strategy is better, but that all of them marketed correctly will make a net profit.
Wow. That's a discussion ending post; not that that's going to happen, lol, but still. You should really hit the "post message" button more often.
Actually there is something missing here.
What is missing is that what they have proven is that the RIGHT monetization strategy for the product can make a net profit. It is the correct pairing of monetization with the product that allows for success.... whereas a bad pairing inhibits success. This is why it is important to understand how each monetization method works, and why.
"The success of MOBA titles indicates a subtle but important shift in the way people like to play online. Offering the same fast paced action as first-person shooter games, MOBAs have quickly become one of the most popular game genres worldwide, growing their share of the overall MMO category from 16% to 24% in just the last year."
Superdata are a bunch of imbeciles who cannot tell the difference between a massively mutiplayer game with 100s+ per server, and a 15v15 battle arena ( like World of Tanks ), or a 5v5 battle arena ( like League of Legends or DotA ).
A MOBA is a Multiplayer Online Battle Arena, not a Massively Multiplayer Online game.
Those punks have no clue, and get no respect from me.
Seriously they are idiots. They list Hearthstone a 1v1 digital trading card game as a MMO let alone the MOBA 5 on 5 team games. They have zero credibility and no clue wtf a MMO even is.
So what is an "MMO"? Where is the definition that isn't your opinion? When the term doesn't have a set meaning, decrying the use of the term as 'wrong' doesn't make sense.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by shingoukieh 1 to 100 ratio p2p vs f2p thats why lol
The ratio is probably a lot closer to 1 to 500 actually...
How many pure P2P subscription games are there nowadays ? Three ?
The large volume of P2P games are B2P or 'Premium'. Remember that this data includes both mobile and console. Remember, there are a lot more F2P games with subs, than P2P with subs.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky May I ask how the other 700+ F2P games are doing, by comparison? Or do the few speak for the whole?
May i ask how the sub only games other than WOW is doing? ... wait ... there aren't many left. Most converted to f2p already.and yes, the few speak for the whole. It is a winner takes all market. When you get a mobile phone game, do you care about the millions which are crap, or just the top couple of hundreds which you don't have time to finish anyway?
You cut out most of his post, then focused on the only line you wanted to address, then asked a question that was answered in the very next line of his post......the 1st line you deleted.
This is the very reason why I have him blocked. He does not want to discuss, just pontificate and I found it more and more difficult to just ignore him, falling into his traps due to my own lack of self control
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
So what is an "MMO"? Where is the definition that isn't your opinion? When the term doesn't have a set meaning, decrying the use of the term as 'wrong' doesn't make sense.
They don't understand that no matter how hard they try to push their own definition, it can just be ignored by the others.
It is really about common usage. If superdata is using this way, and other websites are quoting it as such, and posters talk about their data, that is what the definition will no.
No amount of random people shouting "wrong" will change that. Now they can obviously try to push their own definition and see who is picking that up. It is a very democratic world, and the common usage prevails.
So what is an "MMO"? Where is the definition that isn't your opinion? When the term doesn't have a set meaning, decrying the use of the term as 'wrong' doesn't make sense.
They don't understand that no matter how hard they try to push their own definition, it can just be ignored by the others.
It is really about common usage. If superdata is using this way, and other websites are quoting it as such, and posters talk about their data, that is what the definition will no.
No amount of random people shouting "wrong" will change that. Now they can obviously try to push their own definition and see who is picking that up. It is a very democratic world, and the common usage prevails.
It's not about common usage but common sense. HearthStone is not a MMO. It's a 1v1 digital trading card game. Most people can identify that there is nothing "Massivley" about 1 vs 1 and make the distintion between a massive amount of people playing a game and a massive amount of people in the same game.
Or is Pong a MMO?
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
So what is an "MMO"? Where is the definition that isn't your opinion? When the term doesn't have a set meaning, decrying the use of the term as 'wrong' doesn't make sense.
They don't understand that no matter how hard they try to push their own definition, it can just be ignored by the others.
It is really about common usage. If superdata is using this way, and other websites are quoting it as such, and posters talk about their data, that is what the definition will no.
No amount of random people shouting "wrong" will change that. Now they can obviously try to push their own definition and see who is picking that up. It is a very democratic world, and the common usage prevails.
It's not about common usage but common sense. HearthStone is not a MMO. It's a 1v1 digital trading card game. Most people can identify that there is nothing "Massivley" about 1 vs 1 and make the distintion between a massive amount of people playing a game and a massive amount of people in the same game.
Or is Pong a MMO?
Pong is not common classified as a MMO, so no. As opposed to say World of Tanks, a game with no persistent world, and gameplay all in instances ... which is classified commonly as a MMO.
"The success of MOBA titles indicates a subtle but important shift in the way people like to play online. Offering the same fast paced action as first-person shooter games, MOBAs have quickly become one of the most popular game genres worldwide, growing their share of the overall MMO category from 16% to 24% in just the last year."
Superdata are a bunch of imbeciles who cannot tell the difference between a massively mutiplayer game with 100s+ per server, and a 15v15 battle arena ( like World of Tanks ), or a 5v5 battle arena ( like League of Legends or DotA ).
A MOBA is a Multiplayer Online Battle Arena, not a Massively Multiplayer Online game.
Those punks have no clue, and get no respect from me.
Sadly the people who run MMORPG.com are just as stupid, and also think that World of Tanks is a mmo.
To find an intelligent person in a PUG is not that rare, but to find a PUG made up of "all" intelligent people is one of the rarest phenomenons in the known universe.
I doubt the people making these games care about your definitions they are only looking at the $$$$$ signs. Why is it the Destiny wins awards because while you people are hung up on definitions they are going cha-ching !
Originally posted by cheyane I doubt the people making these games care about your definitions they are only looking at the $$$$$ signs. Why is it the Destiny wins awards because while you people are hung up on definitions they are going cha-ching !
That is the point. And i even doubt most players care about strict definitions. Do people enjoy the same game more (or less) if you classify it differently?
From my experience the only thing I learned to trust is my opinions, nothing else. WOW:WoD took $100 from me and overall $120 CAD this year for the expansion + 4 months and in my opinion P2P is the future. WOW has had prosperous future and still undisputable #1 amongst MMORPG's after all this...if that's not a good indicator that this article/site is flawed, idk what else is.
Because anecdotal evidence always trumps data and facts AMIRITE??
Originally posted by cheyane I doubt the people making these games care about your definitions they are only looking at the $$$$$ signs. Why is it the Destiny wins awards because while you people are hung up on definitions they are going cha-ching !
That is the point. And i even doubt most players care about strict definitions. Do people enjoy the same game more (or less) if you classify it differently?
Originally posted by cheyane I doubt the people making these games care about your definitions they are only looking at the $$$$$ signs. Why is it the Destiny wins awards because while you people are hung up on definitions they are going cha-ching !
That is the point. And i even doubt most players care about strict definitions. Do people enjoy the same game more (or less) if you classify it differently?
That is completely the point that destroys your own argument. Customers do not care what genre their game is classified as, they just care that it's fun. And that it's monetized in such a way as they feel they get good value for money/time spent. Or does anyone here really believe that none of the customers of one type of game are customers of any if not all of the others?
Bickering over what type of game is what, and what pricing plan is king is an effort in futility. Get this through your heads, ALL OF THESE MONETIZATION SCHEMES MAKE A PROFIT. END OF. Their success does not hinge directly on their pricing plan, but on their content. This is why so many MMORPGs that tried to copy WoW's subscription plan failed as customers felt their content was not worth what they were charging. This is why that although Blizzard has proven they can still do amazingly well with a box price plus subscription fee, they are still going to monetize their new MOBA much like their competitors.
Again a smart company will diversify to maximize customer base and profit margin. Blizzard obviously gets this. The gaming industry as a whole is a multibillion dollar juggernaut. It wouldn't be if every company tried to market their games in exactly the same way.
Not even Jove can please all, whether he rains or does not rain.
Originally posted by cheyane I doubt the people making these games care about your definitions they are only looking at the $$$$$ signs. Why is it the Destiny wins awards because while you people are hung up on definitions they are going cha-ching !
That is the point. And i even doubt most players care about strict definitions. Do people enjoy the same game more (or less) if you classify it differently?
That is completely the point that destroys your own argument. Customers do not care what genre their game is classified as, they just care that it's fun. And that it's monetized in such a way as they feel they get good value for money/time spent. Or does anyone here really believe that none of the customers of one type of game are customers of any if not all of the others?
Bickering over what type of game is what, and what pricing plan is king is an effort in futility. Get this through your heads, ALL OF THESE MONETIZATION SCHEMES MAKE A PROFIT. END OF. Their success does not hinge directly on their pricing plan, but on their content. This is why so many MMORPGs that tried to copy WoW's subscription plan failed as customers felt their content was not worth what they were charging. This is why that although Blizzard has proven they can still do amazingly well with a box price plus subscription fee, they are still going to monetize their new MOBA much like their competitors.
Again a smart company will diversify to maximize customer base and profit margin. Blizzard obviously gets this. The gaming industry as a whole is a multibillion dollar juggernaut. It wouldn't be if every company tried to market their games in exactly the same way.
How so? My argument is that this data makes fun discussion. Now given that you have just written 3 paragraphs, how is that not fun?
Originally posted by cheyane I doubt the people making these games care about your definitions they are only looking at the $$$$$ signs. Why is it the Destiny wins awards because while you people are hung up on definitions they are going cha-ching !
I would not disagree with your assessment one bit however it also does not equate to QUALITY gaming.People are not buying these games with knowledge they simply see a fancy gimmick marketing video and buy into it.Weather they actually think the game is of quality only comes after wards.However when i see so many think MOBA's are quality games ,i simply lol.
Farmville also went cha ching,i am sure thousands maybe millions sure wish they had the money back they wasted on that low budget game.However those same people probably would have defended the game whilst they were wasting money on it.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Comments
Good question. F2P, just like P2P has most of the earnings consolidated in the top few games... However, the dropoff for F2P is much less severe than in P2P. This means that if you were to compare top earner #50/100/300/700 you would see that the F2P game is making more than the P2P comparable. In fact the factor by which F2P outearns P2P actually gets GREATER as you go lower on the chart.
You cut out most of his post, then focused on the only line you wanted to address, then asked a question that was answered in the very next line of his post......the 1st line you deleted.
It's funny how he ignores any posts that genuinely challenge him.
"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
Actually you care about what makes you money, provided you have any business sense at all.
All of these different financial configurations make a profit, some just do it in different ways. Some in big bites, some in little nibbles, some in both. So that means any competent company with a worthwhile product will make money regardless of what financial model they use. So you create a product and market it accordingly. A smart business would diversify as much as possible to maximize customer base and profit margin, and not put all of its financial eggs in one basket.
Blizzard has proven that they can make an obscene amount of profit with the subscription model via brand recognition. ArenaNet with Guild Wars Two proved you could also do quite well without one. Riot Games showed the world that a gigantic many years in creation MMORPG wasn't the only way people wanted to play online games. As did Zynga and King with Farmville and Candy Crush Saga.
What they haven't proven is that only one type of game monetization strategy is better, but that all of them marketed correctly will make a net profit.
Not even Jove can please all, whether he rains or does not rain.
Theognis
Wow. That's a discussion ending post; not that that's going to happen, lol, but still. You should really hit the "post message" button more often.
"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
Actually there is something missing here.
What is missing is that what they have proven is that the RIGHT monetization strategy for the product can make a net profit. It is the correct pairing of monetization with the product that allows for success.... whereas a bad pairing inhibits success. This is why it is important to understand how each monetization method works, and why.
So what is an "MMO"? Where is the definition that isn't your opinion? When the term doesn't have a set meaning, decrying the use of the term as 'wrong' doesn't make sense.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The ratio is probably a lot closer to 1 to 500 actually...
How many pure P2P subscription games are there nowadays ? Three ?
The large volume of P2P games are B2P or 'Premium'. Remember that this data includes both mobile and console. Remember, there are a lot more F2P games with subs, than P2P with subs.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
They don't understand that no matter how hard they try to push their own definition, it can just be ignored by the others.
It is really about common usage. If superdata is using this way, and other websites are quoting it as such, and posters talk about their data, that is what the definition will no.
No amount of random people shouting "wrong" will change that. Now they can obviously try to push their own definition and see who is picking that up. It is a very democratic world, and the common usage prevails.
It's not about common usage but common sense. HearthStone is not a MMO. It's a 1v1 digital trading card game. Most people can identify that there is nothing "Massivley" about 1 vs 1 and make the distintion between a massive amount of people playing a game and a massive amount of people in the same game.
Or is Pong a MMO?
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Pong is not common classified as a MMO, so no. As opposed to say World of Tanks, a game with no persistent world, and gameplay all in instances ... which is classified commonly as a MMO.
See the difference?
Sadly the people who run MMORPG.com are just as stupid, and also think that World of Tanks is a mmo.
To find an intelligent person in a PUG is not that rare, but to find a PUG made up of "all" intelligent people is one of the rarest phenomenons in the known universe.
Its Multi-player,
Its Online,
What do these have in common?
3 adjectives.
Shouldn't there be a noun somewhere?
That is the point. And i even doubt most players care about strict definitions. Do people enjoy the same game more (or less) if you classify it differently?
Because anecdotal evidence always trumps data and facts AMIRITE??
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
That is completely the point that destroys your own argument. Customers do not care what genre their game is classified as, they just care that it's fun. And that it's monetized in such a way as they feel they get good value for money/time spent. Or does anyone here really believe that none of the customers of one type of game are customers of any if not all of the others?
Bickering over what type of game is what, and what pricing plan is king is an effort in futility. Get this through your heads, ALL OF THESE MONETIZATION SCHEMES MAKE A PROFIT. END OF. Their success does not hinge directly on their pricing plan, but on their content. This is why so many MMORPGs that tried to copy WoW's subscription plan failed as customers felt their content was not worth what they were charging. This is why that although Blizzard has proven they can still do amazingly well with a box price plus subscription fee, they are still going to monetize their new MOBA much like their competitors.
Again a smart company will diversify to maximize customer base and profit margin. Blizzard obviously gets this. The gaming industry as a whole is a multibillion dollar juggernaut. It wouldn't be if every company tried to market their games in exactly the same way.
Not even Jove can please all, whether he rains or does not rain.
Theognis
How so? My argument is that this data makes fun discussion. Now given that you have just written 3 paragraphs, how is that not fun?
I would not disagree with your assessment one bit however it also does not equate to QUALITY gaming.People are not buying these games with knowledge they simply see a fancy gimmick marketing video and buy into it.Weather they actually think the game is of quality only comes after wards.However when i see so many think MOBA's are quality games ,i simply lol.
Farmville also went cha ching,i am sure thousands maybe millions sure wish they had the money back they wasted on that low budget game.However those same people probably would have defended the game whilst they were wasting money on it.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.