Howdy, Stranger!

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

Whales in F2P - how much do they spend?

1141517192022

Comments

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Great! Glad to see that you totally agree with me. I accept your choice to self define winning, and have done the same myself.
    Except you're applying "win" to things which are virtually never considered winning (having a nice-looking hat) and I'm applying it to things always considered winning (beating the boss.)  So yeah...our definitions are actually quite different from one another, and one is grounded in the literal definition of win while the other is completely arbitrary.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • RobsolfRobsolf Member RarePosts: 4,595
    Axehilt said:
    @Axehilt 5 years ago, your argument had merit.  Today, not so much.  We have seen the cash shops go from the purely cosmetic to out right pure P2W.  We have had great gaming Syndicates that once would shun any type of RMT and flip on the subject and require you to BUY all that you can be if you want to be on their "A Team".   It used to be about skill and earning your positions on raid teams by dedication, hard work, and loyalty to the team.  Now, it's who can buy the most the fastest to field the best team first.  Loyal players are being marginalized by wallets and it's sad to see.


    As for your vague generalization, name many specific MMORPGs which offer P2W purchases. (Keeping in mind that only things which make a game's challenges easier are actually winning; stuff like stat potions or statted gear which makes battles easier.)
    While I'm usually on the other side of this argument, I'd submit that games with XP boosters, (Lotro, Swtor, many more) could be considered pay to win.  While they don't immediately make it easier to "beat the boss", you'll eventually over-level the content, which will likely make that future "yellow boss" a "green boss", and thus, easier to kill.

    But I do tend to agree that the P2W label gets way...way...WAY overused...
  • NukeGamerNukeGamer Member, AMA Guest UncommonPosts: 309
    @Axehilt 5 years ago, your argument had merit.  Today, not so much.  We have seen the cash shops go from the purely cosmetic to out right pure P2W.  We have had great gaming Syndicates that once would shun any type of RMT and flip on the subject and require you to BUY all that you can be if you want to be on their "A Team".   It used to be about skill and earning your positions on raid teams by dedication, hard work, and loyalty to the team.  Now, it's who can buy the most the fastest to field the best team first.  Loyal players are being marginalized by wallets and it's sad to see.
    What games have P2W in their shops?

    Please provide the game and which items you are referring to.  
  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Robsolf said:
    While I'm usually on the other side of this argument, I'd submit that games with XP boosters, (Lotro, Swtor, many more) could be considered pay to win.  While they don't immediately make it easier to "beat the boss", you'll eventually over-level the content, which will likely make that future "yellow boss" a "green boss", and thus, easier to kill.

    But I do tend to agree that the P2W label gets way...way...WAY overused...
    Well it's fine to criticize a game for implementing a tedious grind to sell XP boosters. We need to remember that P2W isn't the only way to criticize item shops.  If a game does that, it's not P2W but it's still bad game design and that deserves criticism.

    But primarily XP boosters are just skipping repetition rather than letting you skip or reduce the need for skill. You'll typically still need to kill each new monster type a few times (proving you have enough skill to beat the challenge) in order to progress, you just won't have to repeat that process the 100th time because the booster let's you level up into the next monster quicker.

    Facing the green boss doesn't really make things easier in a way you couldn't achieve normally (I don't need an XP potion to deliberately fight green bosses and have an easy time.)

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • anemoanemo Member RarePosts: 1,718
    mmoluva said:
    I spent $800 over a two month period on Runes of Magic and I am an absolute loser in real life.  The most I've personally witnessed was a guild member of mine in the same game spent $22,000.  Those HOGG dudes looted a weapon from him that was worth $800 and griefed him by posting it in world chat until he quit.  I hope that helps you.
    Guess this is the reason why it seems like more F2P games are avoiding PvPer(new Nexon games, upcoming Aeria games), or aiming to be more MOBA like(raw arena style games, or ones without any kind of progress loss(future progress reduction is fine and monetizable though)).   The ability of the community to scare away a Whale is a very bad thing.  PvPers are very good at scaring away the community, or just being  expensive to have in a game(always complaining about balance,  needing frequent 'free' updates to keep the metagame fresh, and needing an extensive 'game mechanic' support) .

    Which I guess is kind of a good thing.   Since any game with meaningful PvPer is terrible as F2P(free scouts, too easy to set up targets, and similar).

    Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.

    "At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."

  • OldSchoolGamerOldSchoolGamer Member UncommonPosts: 226
    NukeGamer said:
    @Axehilt 5 years ago, your argument had merit.  Today, not so much.  We have seen the cash shops go from the purely cosmetic to out right pure P2W.  We have had great gaming Syndicates that once would shun any type of RMT and flip on the subject and require you to BUY all that you can be if you want to be on their "A Team".   It used to be about skill and earning your positions on raid teams by dedication, hard work, and loyalty to the team.  Now, it's who can buy the most the fastest to field the best team first.  Loyal players are being marginalized by wallets and it's sad to see.
    What games have P2W in their shops?

    Please provide the game and which items you are referring to.  

    I've already said it.  Look at the gamelist on this website.  If you see the word item mall, it's 90% likelihood it's P2W.  Is it to verying degrees.  Absolutely.  Want specific ones as examples?  Fine.  World of Tanks.  You can buy best ammo and tanks in the game RIGHT NOW that will take those not willing to open their wallet months to get.  Vindictus.  In there you can spend $600 and have enough stat points literally to be tied with the best stat players on the server.  ESO.  You can buy glyphs out the cash shop to min/max your toon for best stats for your build that would take you weeks if not months  to buy.  My point is, don't try to tell me a cash shop isn't P2W.  If an item that you can buy for cash gives you a statistical advantage over another player regardless of the length of the boost is good for, it is still pay to win.

    If a game launches F2P, it is my choice to play or not.  Changing the business model after a game launches, IMHO, is unethical.  At that point, I believe existing players are due compensation equal to the amount the player has already invested in the game for cash shop purchases or some sort of "subbed for life" type benefit.  Previous supporters deserve that respect.  To Turbine's credit, their sub to F2P conversion was the best to date.  Most companies gave the players the middle finger.
  • NukeGamerNukeGamer Member, AMA Guest UncommonPosts: 309
    NukeGamer said:
    @Axehilt 5 years ago, your argument had merit.  Today, not so much.  We have seen the cash shops go from the purely cosmetic to out right pure P2W.  We have had great gaming Syndicates that once would shun any type of RMT and flip on the subject and require you to BUY all that you can be if you want to be on their "A Team".   It used to be about skill and earning your positions on raid teams by dedication, hard work, and loyalty to the team.  Now, it's who can buy the most the fastest to field the best team first.  Loyal players are being marginalized by wallets and it's sad to see.
    What games have P2W in their shops?

    Please provide the game and which items you are referring to.  



    If a game launches F2P, it is my choice to play or not.  Changing the business model after a game launches, IMHO, is unethical.  At that point, I believe existing players are due compensation equal to the amount the player has already invested in the game for cash shop purchases or some sort of "subbed for life" type benefit.  Previous supporters deserve that respect.  To Turbine's credit, their sub to F2P conversion was the best to date.  Most companies gave the players the middle finger.
    Class this here is what we call the entitlement mentality.  

    ESO is NOT P2W lol I can't comment on WoT never played it. 


  • OldSchoolGamerOldSchoolGamer Member UncommonPosts: 226
    @NukeGamer So you don't think being able to BUY the best stats in the game out the cash shop is P2W.  Noted.  As far as your entitlement mentality comment,  you can call it that.  I call it taking care of those that have taken care of you before letting the tin foil hat wearing P2W/free loader crowd through the doors.
  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,183
    Axehilt said:
    Great! Glad to see that you totally agree with me. I accept your choice to self define winning, and have done the same myself.
    Except you're applying "win" to things which are virtually never considered winning (having a nice-looking hat) and I'm applying it to things always considered winning (beating the boss.)  So yeah...our definitions are actually quite different from one another, and one is grounded in the literal definition of win while the other is completely arbitrary.
    Your opinion on what is winning for you is either valid (and so is mine) or it is not (and neither is mine). However, if it is just that your opinion is right for everyone (else), then you are wrong as long as there is anyone out there that doesn't agree (and I am ok with you being wrong as well).
  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504

    I've already said it.  Look at the gamelist on this website.  If you see the word item mall, it's 90% likelihood it's P2W.  Is it to verying degrees.  Absolutely.  Want specific ones as examples?  Fine.  World of Tanks.  You can buy best ammo and tanks in the game RIGHT NOW that will take those not willing to open their wallet months to get.  Vindictus.  In there you can spend $600 and have enough stat points literally to be tied with the best stat players on the server.  ESO.  You can buy glyphs out the cash shop to min/max your toon for best stats for your build that would take you weeks if not months  to buy.  My point is, don't try to tell me a cash shop isn't P2W.  If an item that you can buy for cash gives you a statistical advantage over another player regardless of the length of the boost is good for, it is still pay to win.

    If a game launches F2P, it is my choice to play or not.  Changing the business model after a game launches, IMHO, is unethical.  At that point, I believe existing players are due compensation equal to the amount the player has already invested in the game for cash shop purchases or some sort of "subbed for life" type benefit.  Previous supporters deserve that respect.  To Turbine's credit, their sub to F2P conversion was the best to date.  Most companies gave the players the middle finger.
    World of Tanks free players can use premium ammo and when they play in their mid-tier tank they will be matched against other mid-tier opponents, and so they're not actually disadvantaged compared with paying players.

    This is ESO's store. It only has cosmetics, conveniences, and time-savers. The glyphs you mention aren't there.

    Back when WoT sold premium ammo only with premium currency, that was P2W. It was a concrete advantage that made winning require less skill.

    Nowadays WoT isn't P2W and a team of free players is on even footing against payers. In practice the free players are likely to win slightly more. It took them substantially more playtime to reach that tank tier, so they'll typically have a slight skill advantage.

    Basically you're not describing pay to win things, you're describing advantages. Pay to win is (naturally) about winning.  If you wanted to criticize advantages, you'd probably just say "purchase" or "paid advantage" since the things you're talking about don't relate to winning.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Your opinion on what is winning for you is either valid (and so is mine) or it is not (and neither is mine). However, if it is just that your opinion is right for everyone (else), then you are wrong as long as there is anyone out there that doesn't agree (and I am ok with you being wrong as well).
    This is not an opinion on what winning is.  People simply don't say "I won!" when they get a nice hat.  Getting a nice hat isn't a win.  That's just not how the word "win" is applied.  They haven't achieved victory or beat anything.  There was no competition involved. They just got a nice looking hat is all.  And that hat does have value to them, but it's not winning.

    The winning I'm describing is how the word is actually used. Not by me, but by everyone.  When you are victorious over an encounter, you've won.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • whisperwyndwhisperwynd Member UncommonPosts: 1,668
    edited October 2015
      Many things in life can be 'won' depending on the criteria of the event.

    One may 'win' a beauty contest or costume party prize, or collecting all the items in a 'treasure hunt'. 
    These can be synonymous in context with what many in these threads argue about the CS only pets or cosmetics.

     Seems to me it's more akin to envy than anything. The mentality of some, however, see it as a competition regardless of the literal definition.


    Post edited by whisperwynd on
  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,183
    Axehilt said:
    Your opinion on what is winning for you is either valid (and so is mine) or it is not (and neither is mine). However, if it is just that your opinion is right for everyone (else), then you are wrong as long as there is anyone out there that doesn't agree (and I am ok with you being wrong as well).
    This is not an opinion on what winning is.  People simply don't say "I won!" when they get a nice hat.  Getting a nice hat isn't a win.  That's just not how the word "win" is applied.  They haven't achieved victory or beat anything.  There was no competition involved. They just got a nice looking hat is all.  And that hat does have value to them, but it's not winning.

    The winning I'm describing is how the word is actually used. Not by me, but by everyone.  When you are victorious over an encounter, you've won.
    Well, then, I guess you have chosen to be wrong. You dont have to agree with others opinions, but as long as you think that your opinion overrides others... then you are just wrong (and the details don't matter).
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    @NukeGamer So you don't think being able to BUY the best stats in the game out the cash shop is P2W.  Noted.  As far as your entitlement mentality comment,  you can call it that.  I call it taking care of those that have taken care of you before letting the tin foil hat wearing P2W/free loader crowd through the doors.
    I don't think so either.

    I usually play MMOs only pve and solo .. there is no p2w because there is no winning.
  • anemoanemo Member RarePosts: 1,718
    You're all pretty tangent with the original topic of how much whales are actually spending.  While being pay to win or not could alter how much they spend, you're not even trying to cover the OPs topic while arguing.

    Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.

    "At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."

  • pongdunpongdun Member UncommonPosts: 81
    Whales are not only in free to play games. You should checkout all others. That's a sub.game that's a whales dream.
  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,183
    pongdun said:
    Whales are not only in free to play games. You should checkout all others. That's a sub.game that's a whales dream.
    Correct... and whales spend at the same general level (thousands per month) in P2P games.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    pongdun said:
    Whales are not only in free to play games. You should checkout all others. That's a sub.game that's a whales dream.
    True .. and i don't see anyone claiming that whales are only in f2p games.

    However, given there are many more who play f2p games than sub-only game (e.g. LoL has tens of millions of players, and WOW only have what .. 4 or 5M left?) .... f2p games probably cast a wider net and find more whales. 
  • laxielaxie Member RarePosts: 1,042
    pongdun said:
    Whales are not only in free to play games. You should checkout all others. That's a sub.game that's a whales dream.
    Correct... and whales spend at the same general level (thousands per month) in P2P games.
    How can any player spend significant amounts of money on a P2P game?

    To me the biggest "disadvantage" of the P2P model from a business point is the fact that you are effectively putting a cap on how much a person can spend.

    If the subscription is 15$ a month, you are effectively limiting a person spending 15$ a month.
  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    laxie said:
    pongdun said:
    Whales are not only in free to play games. You should checkout all others. That's a sub.game that's a whales dream.
    Correct... and whales spend at the same general level (thousands per month) in P2P games.
    How can any player spend significant amounts of money on a P2P game?

    To me the biggest "disadvantage" of the P2P model from a business point is the fact that you are effectively putting a cap on how much a person can spend.

    If the subscription is 15$ a month, you are effectively limiting a person spending 15$ a month.
    No, you are limiting what YOU, the developer, gets from the player. You can still collect on multiple accounts, which is far more common than one may think, but you have left piles of cash on the table for third party sellers.  This is how the item malls and selling extras came about. People were already spending the money elsewhere.  

    Rewind back to 2003, and for one game (UO) in just one sales channel (eBay) there was $150,000 in sales per week. Expand that out to all the sellers and a dozen or so games, and the numbers are staggering. In 2006, one reseller (IGE) was looking at over $100 million in revenue for the year. 

    There have always been big spenders in MMOs. 

    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

  • JabasJabas Member UncommonPosts: 1,249
    Dont know if was mentioned, didnt read all pages, but a few years ago Heros of The Three Kingdoms, a game i bealive is no longer around, had a monthly rank about how much whales spend there, every single month there was at least 3 people above 10k, some above 5k and alot above 1k, every month. Was fun if games implement that rank around, they dont do it because most of whales wanna do it in secret.
  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,183
    laxie said:
    pongdun said:
    Whales are not only in free to play games. You should checkout all others. That's a sub.game that's a whales dream.
    Correct... and whales spend at the same general level (thousands per month) in P2P games.
    How can any player spend significant amounts of money on a P2P game?

    To me the biggest "disadvantage" of the P2P model from a business point is the fact that you are effectively putting a cap on how much a person can spend.

    If the subscription is 15$ a month, you are effectively limiting a person spending 15$ a month.
    In the late 90's the industry found out that large spenders were willing to Pay for Box + Expansion + Sub for a large group of people. These people were effectively 'employed' by them to make their game better.  They would gather the rare items/content for their employer, and block others from getting them.

    It became bad enough in the 2000's that developers started changing how the game was coded (moving from open world to instanced content for example) because the public was being prevented from accessing the better content. 

    The publishers didn't want to stop this practice (as it made them a ton of money) but they did want to have more people access the content that they had developed. This is what caused many games to change  after 6m/1y because the developers could see that access to content was blocked.

    This is also what has driven games to include alternate monetization (best example is Eve and Plex) that would allow for this same exchange, but on a public scale.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Jabas said:
    Dont know if was mentioned, didnt read all pages, but a few years ago Heros of The Three Kingdoms, a game i bealive is no longer around, had a monthly rank about how much whales spend there, every single month there was at least 3 people above 10k, some above 5k and alot above 1k, every month. Was fun if games implement that rank around, they dont do it because most of whales wanna do it in secret.
    They should .. also give whales more reason to spend .. get on top of the chart.
  • OldSchoolGamerOldSchoolGamer Member UncommonPosts: 226
    Time to put this Whales vs Sub myth to rest.  Apples to Apples... #1 vs #1  League of Legends vs WoW

    World of Warcraft has consistently brought in a billion dollars in each of the last five years.  For Blizzard to get their billion they only need 5,555,556 subscribers paying $15 a month.  That does not take into consideration Blizzards cash shop which brings their subscribers numbers required to get to a billion even down further.

    Now, let's look  at League of Legends.  For the very first time, we have a micro transaction game top 1 billion dollars in 2014.  Question is, what did it take to get $1,000,000,000?

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/01/27/riots-league-of-legends-reveals-astonishing-27-million-daily-players-67-million-monthly/What WoW does with 5 million subscribers a month LoL takes 67 million players a month to achieve the same results.  Based on numbers, no F2P micro-transaction games are NOT more profitable than subscription games.  It takes LoL nearly 14x the amount of players to achieve the exact same result.
  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
      Many things in life can be 'won' depending on the criteria of the event.

    One may 'win' a beauty contest or costume party prize, or collecting all the items in a 'treasure hunt'. 
    These can be synonymous in context with what many in these threads argue about the CS only pets or cosmetics.

     Seems to me it's more akin to envy than anything. The mentality of some, however, see it as a competition regardless of the literal definition.


    Yes, exactly!  Based on the criteria of the event.  Not based on arbitrary goals, but based on the event's rules. The game's rules. 

    I'm definitely not saying winning only exists as PVE and PVP challenges. If a costume contest existed in an MMORPG, there would certainly be winning involved.

    Envy certainly can be a factor, but is definitely a bigger factor with the wrong use of P2W (since envy is really the only thing driving whether a player would be worried about someone buying a nice-looking hat, in a game where nice-looking hats have zero relevance to winning.)

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

Sign In or Register to comment.