My point is that I think that F2P games could be both hugely more successful if they set realistic prices for game store items and create a lot more happy, paying customers that way. Instead of only a few.
You seems to forget that it does not automatically become true if you say so.
Whales are what is holding the f2p games up, and certainly few big transactions seem to work pretty well for the devs.
This is an internet forum, these are opinions. It's also kind of funny that you make a statement that isn't backed up by anything just after complaining that I did so.
A lot is being said about whales, but what F2P games exactly have tried to do things radically different? How can we even draw conclusions when this style of game is so young?
It is not an opinion that f2p games are going after whales (read the gamasutra article, for example). It is not an opinion that f2p games are making more than p2p games and taking over.
I did not say there is no better way ... i said "current method works for them" .. which certainly does ... otherwise they would have changed their business models.
And no f2p have not tried to do things radically different. Why should they? They don't need to risk a different method when the current one works. You know, if it is not broken ...
The basic issue is this: What people BELIEVE should work, and what ACTUALLY works are not the same. Business has to do what produces results, or they don't make enough money to continue to operate. It doesn't matter that people THINK that companies could make money with lower cost/higher volume sales.... it does matter that it often doesn't work.
Price elasticity and the the market effects of pricing are not a new, unknown, untested variable. There is a LOT of really good data on this, and how to calculate it. Companies calculate these variables routinely, and often. The results for MMORPGs have shown repeatedly that customers are price intolerant. This means that they dont drop off/stop spending with high(er) prices, but that they also dont start spending/spend more with lower prices. The market is also saturated, and CPA is high. This means that a low spend may actually lose money for the company, once other costs are accounted for.
Companies are just doing the things that allow them to operate... and many/most of the MMO companies are struggling, because the the cost of development, and cost of acquisition. They are not getting rich.. as they are often barely paying the bills. The exception is the very large companies, and/or those with a breakout hit.
The basic issue is this: What people BELIEVE should work, and what ACTUALLY works are not the same. Business has to do what produces results
I would say a business model that beat p2p by a mile, and have most of the top 10 money making MMOs would be classified as "working".
Don't tell me you don't think making $600M a year (LoL) is "working".
The basic issue is this: What people BELIEVE should work, and what ACTUALLY works are not the same. Business has to do what produces results
I would say a business model that beat p2p by a mile, and have most of the top 10 money making MMOs would be classified as "working".
Don't tell me you don't think making $600M a year (LoL) is "working".
LoL is most definitely working.. and so is WoW... which is why companies look at these examples, and try to replicate the results. However, as we have seen (in the past decade), it is not always that easy to replicate.... and companies still have to survive. This is why there is not a single business model to rule them all.
P.S. LoL used the same business model that was already in use in asia, and which worked for the same reasons.
It is not an opinion that f2p games are going after whales (read the gamasutra article, for example). It is not an opinion that f2p games are making more than p2p games and taking over.
I did not say there is no better way ... i said "current method works for them" .. which certainly does ... otherwise they would have changed their business models.
And no f2p have not tried to do things radically different. Why should they? They don't need to risk a different method when the current one works. You know, if it is not broken ...
I read the gamasutra article ages ago. It describes the behaviour of current F2P and whales. But it doesn't reference quality surveys or data.
Current methods may work that's true. But this once again shows how young an industry F2P is for me. In many older physical fields of work taking risks is really the only way to set yourself apart from the rest.
With the expansion of F2P and games in general it's just baffling to me that so very few games actually dare to take risks in terms of new payment models. What games are setting themselves apart from the rest in a radically new way?
Yet that's the way to success for so many other businesses in the past. One example being that of Toyota gaining an incredible advantage over competitors by offering 5 year warranties on trucks, while all other competitors couldn't offer more than 2.
I'm convinced that those companies going against the flow in gaming will make the difference. It's just sad to see it take so long in an industry which has none of the concerns that a traditional branch has: like supply chains and material costs for each and every unit of a product.
Post edited by Fdzzaigl on
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
The basic issue is this: What people BELIEVE should work, and what ACTUALLY works are not the same. Business has to do what produces results
I would say a business model that beat p2p by a mile, and have most of the top 10 money making MMOs would be classified as "working".
Don't tell me you don't think making $600M a year (LoL) is "working".
LoL is most definitely working.. and so is WoW... which is why companies look at these examples, and try to replicate the results. However, as we have seen (in the past decade), it is not always that easy to replicate.... and companies still have to survive. This is why there is not a single business model to rule them all.
P.S. LoL used the same business model that was already in use in asia, and which worked for the same reasons.
Not a single one ... true .. but some are dominating over others. Look at the top 10 MMOs, how many are sub-only?
In every market, there are always good products and bad ones. But if f2p is so overwhelming in terms of its representation in the top 10 (or top 20) MMOs, that tells you something.
I make the point that it is very poor value for your money to buy an ingame hat or some fluff for €20 while nowadays you can get full retail games at that price point.
My point is that I think that F2P games could be both hugely more successful if they set realistic prices for game store items and create a lot more happy, paying customers that way. Instead of only a few.
Interesting assumptions. Not based at all in reality, but interesting. I mean, are you suggesting prices in item malls start at 20 euros? Nooo... of course not, right? Then what you're arguing is that because there are items at that price, then it's poor value. You too added together A, B and 4, and you came up with "crayon".
Pick a subject you're a little better versed in, Elikal.
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
The F2P market has primarily grown due to the MMORPG genre stagnating rather heavily for quite awhile now. Companies keep trying to focus on capturing the market segment that World of Warcraft hit early on and the like not realizing that it has the crowd it does not because it's a stellar mmorpg but the warcraft IP had a fanbase prior to it and it hit during a time when gaming was becoming more "socially acceptable. Blizzard also had the money to go around heavily advertising on television and the like that not many MMORPGS have or will likely ever do.
There are a good portion of players in WoW that are just WoW players and not at all MMORPG players and these companies need to look at realistic growth numbers. We are at a point where two million players would be a realistic population base at the highest tier for most MMORPGs and likely will almost always end up a bit lower than this unless you can pull in a captive audience for a long enough period of time to truly grow.
The larger problem with the stagnation is that outside of story which in large part people ignore and some "skills" most of these games are feeling the same (minus some polish here and there) to a good portion of the crowd that plays these games.
Why should or why would I opt to pay for a game that feels the same as a game I can get for free that plays almost the same gameplay wise and almost the same level of polish as some games that are P2P. You also run into the area where many F2P titles will take a bit more risk than a P2P game. Indie games and F2P titles now are where the innovation seems to be popping up.
The F2P market has primarily grown due to the MMORPG genre stagnating rather heavily for quite awhile now. Companies keep trying to focus on capturing the market segment that World of Warcraft hit early on and the like not realizing that it has the crowd it does not because it's a stellar mmorpg but the warcraft IP had a fanbase prior to it and it hit during a time when gaming was becoming more "socially acceptable. Blizzard also had the money to go around heavily advertising on television and the like that not many MMORPGS have or will likely ever do.
And yes, you are right .. the MMORPG genre has stagnated because devs don't want to make them anymore. They are now more focused on other kinds of MMOs.
Who else is still following WoW? Not even Blizz is making another MMORPG .. and they are following LoL (HotS), making card games, and going into other areas.
F2P actually helps these OTHER areas to grow. None of these new types of MMOs are using sub-only model.
I make the point that it is very poor value for your money to buy an ingame hat or some fluff for €20 while nowadays you can get full retail games at that price point.
My point is that I think that F2P games could be both hugely more successful if they set realistic prices for game store items and create a lot more happy, paying customers that way. Instead of only a few.
Interesting assumptions. Not based at all in reality, but interesting. I mean, are you suggesting prices in item malls start at 20 euros? Nooo... of course not, right? Then what you're arguing is that because there are items at that price, then it's poor value. You too added together A, B and 4, and you came up with "crayon".
Pick a subject you're a little better versed in, Elikal.
First off: "Elikal?" Are you freaking serious? So every time I went into discussion with that guy I was doing some sort of psycho schizophrenia act? /facepalm
If you're so incredibly well versed in this subject, you might want to stop putting words into my mouth and actually try to discuss the damn subject. Or give some insight in this "reality" you are touting.
Yes I find many of the items in F2P shops overpriced for the value that they offer. The fact that there are often also items in those shops which aren't overpriced doesn't change the fact that IN MY OPINION (for god's sake it's irritating to have to put this after each and every sentence lest you get accused of whichever what), those other items aren't overpriced.
Overall, IN MY OPINION AND EXPERIENCE, a lot of free2play games out there have a generally poor balance of value in their item malls. Featuring a lot of poor-value items, including: expensive cosmetic items; time-savers; RNG lottery items; expensive unlockables etc.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Overall, IN MY OPINION AND EXPERIENCE, a lot of free2play games out there have a generally poor balance of value in their item malls. Featuring a lot of poor-value items, including: expensive cosmetic items; time-savers; RNG lottery items; expensive unlockables etc.
This is as good a time as any to use these references:
These are great references, and show how developers balance the different type of players. What does this have to do with the products being sold? Well, they are targeting the player bases that they want for their game. Those cosmetic items being sold.... killers find them too expensive, and not useful. However, they are great for socializers, and achievers want to get them all. For them, the value is acceptable.
Superman0X said: What does this have to do with the products being sold? Well, they are targeting the player bases that they want for their game. Those cosmetic items being sold.... killers find them too expensive, and not useful. However, they are great for socializers, and achievers want to get them all. For them, the value is acceptable.
I didn't think that needed to be explained, but evidently it did and I thank you for doing so. I assumed that if someone was going to not just discuss but actually argue their points here they would know something as basic as that.
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
The F2P market has primarily grown due to the MMORPG genre stagnating rather heavily for quite awhile now.
P2P MMORPGs weren't ever that big enough that they represent the massive F2P industrial (which covers many game types, many of which don't have much demographic overlap with MMORPG players.)
But sure if you're only referring to MMORPG players transitioning from B2P to F2P, then that's true (though slightly misleading to imply F2P is primarily popular due to B2P stagnating, when the bigger picture of all F2P gaming shows that this is simply something players are widely interested in.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
These are great references, and show how developers balance the different type of players. What does this have to do with the products being sold? Well, they are targeting the player bases that they want for their game. Those cosmetic items being sold.... killers find them too expensive, and not useful. However, they are great for socializers, and achievers want to get them all. For them, the value is acceptable.
Yes, that's a great series of videos., I really love Extra Credits and agree with many of his points. But you see, I don't think this opinion of mine is contrary to anything being said here.
First off, the last video is interesting. But if you do the Bartle test you will notice how no one conforms 100% to any of those types. I for example am primarily an explorer, then equal parts socializer / killer, then a little bit achiever. Ultimately what is being sold in the cash shop will also try to reach every type of gamer in their game. Do keep in mind that I'm not purely talking about cosmetic stuff here, though that is my prime example.
Finally, I'm not disputing that value has a huge subjective component to it. However, MMO publishers / developers do not live in a vacuum; neither do customers live in a vacuum (at least I damn well hope they don't). People know and see the pricing for other products out there, and a customer who goes out to compare and look at what they're getting for their money, can make a fairly objective judgement about the prices of items in these games.
The OP of this thread mentioned that he would like to see better F2P projects and that more competition would take place. I would like this as well.
However, MMO competitors have largely followed suit in their pricing so far. A strong example being WoW's $20 pony's. Which, despite controversy at the time, is now deemed an acceptable price for such an item by many F2P & P2P games alike.
Now you can think about this and follow two lines of thought. 1) A lot of people still took the bait and spent the money on that mount regardless of any controversy. As any protest died down anyhow, we'll be cool asking that price in the future too. This kind of thought is (imo) anti-customer.
2)You can think about all the people who *didn't* take the bait, the ones who protested about this kind of thing because they compared prices and ultimately felt the deal lacking. Then you can decide that instead you'll be trying to sweeten the deal by lowering prices to acceptable standards and breed more happy customers. That's what I would call pro-customer.
So far, I've personally seen a lot of the first way of thinking out there. That's my opinion, but if you've ever read any sort of F2P game forums, I really think you'd see I'm not alone there.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
I didn't think that needed to be explained, but evidently it did and I thank you for doing so. I assumed that if someone was going to not just discuss but actually argue their points here they would know something as basic as that.
This post made me laugh really hard. Because when you're calling the linked Extra Credit's video's "basic"; not only did I watch those two video's before, my opinion on this matter has also been heavily influenced by him.
Cases in point:
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
I didn't think that needed to be explained, but evidently it did and I thank you for doing so. I assumed that if someone was going to not just discuss but actually argue their points here they would know something as basic as that.
This post made me laugh really hard. Because when you're calling the linked Extra Credit's video's "basic"; not only did I watch those two video's before, my opinion on this matter has also been heavily influenced by him.
I didn't say anything about the videos. I quoted and spoke about a specific statement, which you conveniently left out of this reply. I even omitted the videos in my reply so there could be no mistake in what I was referring to. Maybe during all that laughing you just missed that... among other things.
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
The OP of this thread mentioned that he would like to see better F2P projects and that more competition would take place. I would like this as well.
I do agree more competition is always better for consumers.
However, I would like to point out that there are a lot of competition out there already. How many MOBAs are out there? How about vehicle shooting games like WoT are out there? How many WOW-like MMORPGs are out there?
And how many games are already weeded out by competition?
Considering the contents of those videos cover points that I was making in this thread previously, can't really say you're going to get any meaningful responses addressing them as thus-far it's been the strategy to pretend none of that exists.
For example, the last post addressed to me tried to counterpoint on LoL by suggesting players are not in fact paying for content regularly that they have no knowledge on if they will enjoy. The reality is that it's a regular occurrence in LoL because the sales of new characters is pretty important. There's no certainty whatsoever that they are enjoying the content they are investing into, the only motivation is the notion of staying competitive. It's ironic that the point to be made isn't that it's even saying the game is fun to play, but that the game attracts those that are primarily satisfied by "winning" over their competitors. There's no objective point to be made of the game's quality there, and that's rather the point that the quality of the game has become a tertiary concern compared to the hype and maintaining an influx of users. The monetisation model relies on mass volume and these purchases that results. Just consider how much hype was engineered around a video for skin textures recently. Selling an idea far outstrips the matter of what the product even is in this case.
Also for example, the response given to one of your posts suggesting the focus of the topic, that then does not address the fact that your other post expounds on said topic quite a bit.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
There's no certainty whatsoever that they are enjoying the content they are investing into, the only motivation is the notion of staying competitive. It's ironic that the point to be made isn't that it's even saying the game is fun to play, but that the game attracts those that are primarily satisfied by "winning" over their competitors.
If they are "satisfied" (your words, not mine) by whatever (in this case "winning") .. isn't that where the enjoyment is?
You cannot argue there is no enjoyment whatsoever. Otherwise, why would millions of people stay.
In fact, in the absence of evidence (do you have a survey showing that most LoL players do not enjoy playing at all, but only winning?), it is much more reasonable to assume there is some enjoyment also in the gameplay.
Otherwise, since there are so many other competitive games out there, they can easily choose one that give them the satisfaction of winning and fun (subjective) gameplay.
So many competitive games, not so many MLG. Most those other titles you suggest abound have nowhere's near the advertised presence or resulting sub/turnover rate of LoL, making it much less likely that people wanting to be competitive will even look at them. It's very much image moving people in this case.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Comments
Price elasticity and the the market effects of pricing are not a new, unknown, untested variable. There is a LOT of really good data on this, and how to calculate it. Companies calculate these variables routinely, and often. The results for MMORPGs have shown repeatedly that customers are price intolerant. This means that they dont drop off/stop spending with high(er) prices, but that they also dont start spending/spend more with lower prices. The market is also saturated, and CPA is high. This means that a low spend may actually lose money for the company, once other costs are accounted for.
Companies are just doing the things that allow them to operate... and many/most of the MMO companies are struggling, because the the cost of development, and cost of acquisition. They are not getting rich.. as they are often barely paying the bills. The exception is the very large companies, and/or those with a breakout hit.
P.S. LoL used the same business model that was already in use in asia, and which worked for the same reasons.
Current methods may work that's true. But this once again shows how young an industry F2P is for me.
In many older physical fields of work taking risks is really the only way to set yourself apart from the rest.
With the expansion of F2P and games in general it's just baffling to me that so very few games actually dare to take risks in terms of new payment models. What games are setting themselves apart from the rest in a radically new way?
Yet that's the way to success for so many other businesses in the past. One example being that of Toyota gaining an incredible advantage over competitors by offering 5 year warranties on trucks, while all other competitors couldn't offer more than 2.
I'm convinced that those companies going against the flow in gaming will make the difference. It's just sad to see it take so long in an industry which has none of the concerns that a traditional branch has: like supply chains and material costs for each and every unit of a product.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
In every market, there are always good products and bad ones. But if f2p is so overwhelming in terms of its representation in the top 10 (or top 20) MMOs, that tells you something.
Pick a subject you're a little better versed in, Elikal.
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
There are a good portion of players in WoW that are just WoW players and not at all MMORPG players and these companies need to look at realistic growth numbers. We are at a point where two million players would be a realistic population base at the highest tier for most MMORPGs and likely will almost always end up a bit lower than this unless you can pull in a captive audience for a long enough period of time to truly grow.
The larger problem with the stagnation is that outside of story which in large part people ignore and some "skills" most of these games are feeling the same (minus some polish here and there) to a good portion of the crowd that plays these games.
Why should or why would I opt to pay for a game that feels the same as a game I can get for free that plays almost the same gameplay wise and almost the same level of polish as some games that are P2P. You also run into the area where many F2P titles will take a bit more risk than a P2P game. Indie games and F2P titles now are where the innovation seems to be popping up.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/23/league-of-legends-tops-mmo-revenue-list-hearthstone-no-10/
And yes, you are right .. the MMORPG genre has stagnated because devs don't want to make them anymore. They are now more focused on other kinds of MMOs.
Who else is still following WoW? Not even Blizz is making another MMORPG .. and they are following LoL (HotS), making card games, and going into other areas.
F2P actually helps these OTHER areas to grow. None of these new types of MMOs are using sub-only model.
If you're so incredibly well versed in this subject, you might want to stop putting words into my mouth and actually try to discuss the damn subject. Or give some insight in this "reality" you are touting.
Yes I find many of the items in F2P shops overpriced for the value that they offer. The fact that there are often also items in those shops which aren't overpriced doesn't change the fact that IN MY OPINION (for god's sake it's irritating to have to put this after each and every sentence lest you get accused of whichever what), those other items aren't overpriced.
Overall, IN MY OPINION AND EXPERIENCE, a lot of free2play games out there have a generally poor balance of value in their item malls. Featuring a lot of poor-value items, including: expensive cosmetic items; time-savers; RNG lottery items; expensive unlockables etc.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
These are great references, and show how developers balance the different type of players. What does this have to do with the products being sold? Well, they are targeting the player bases that they want for their game. Those cosmetic items being sold.... killers find them too expensive, and not useful. However, they are great for socializers, and achievers want to get them all. For them, the value is acceptable.
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
Value is subjective and perceived. So you (one player) think that they are overpriced ... naturally you won't buy anything.
However, if the game survives, it means that SOME (whales?) find the items NOT overpriced (otherwise they would not have bought).
But sure if you're only referring to MMORPG players transitioning from B2P to F2P, then that's true (though slightly misleading to imply F2P is primarily popular due to B2P stagnating, when the bigger picture of all F2P gaming shows that this is simply something players are widely interested in.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
First off, the last video is interesting. But if you do the Bartle test you will notice how no one conforms 100% to any of those types. I for example am primarily an explorer, then equal parts socializer / killer, then a little bit achiever.
Ultimately what is being sold in the cash shop will also try to reach every type of gamer in their game.
Do keep in mind that I'm not purely talking about cosmetic stuff here, though that is my prime example.
Finally, I'm not disputing that value has a huge subjective component to it. However, MMO publishers / developers do not live in a vacuum; neither do customers live in a vacuum (at least I damn well hope they don't).
People know and see the pricing for other products out there, and a customer who goes out to compare and look at what they're getting for their money, can make a fairly objective judgement about the prices of items in these games.
The OP of this thread mentioned that he would like to see better F2P projects and that more competition would take place. I would like this as well.
However, MMO competitors have largely followed suit in their pricing so far. A strong example being WoW's $20 pony's. Which, despite controversy at the time, is now deemed an acceptable price for such an item by many F2P & P2P games alike.
Now you can think about this and follow two lines of thought.
1) A lot of people still took the bait and spent the money on that mount regardless of any controversy. As any protest died down anyhow, we'll be cool asking that price in the future too. This kind of thought is (imo) anti-customer.
2)You can think about all the people who *didn't* take the bait, the ones who protested about this kind of thing because they compared prices and ultimately felt the deal lacking. Then you can decide that instead you'll be trying to sweeten the deal by lowering prices to acceptable standards and breed more happy customers. That's what I would call pro-customer.
So far, I've personally seen a lot of the first way of thinking out there. That's my opinion, but if you've ever read any sort of F2P game forums, I really think you'd see I'm not alone there.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Cases in point:
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
I didn't say anything about the videos. I quoted and spoke about a specific statement, which you conveniently left out of this reply. I even omitted the videos in my reply so there could be no mistake in what I was referring to. Maybe during all that laughing you just missed that... among other things.
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
However, I would like to point out that there are a lot of competition out there already. How many MOBAs are out there? How about vehicle shooting games like WoT are out there? How many WOW-like MMORPGs are out there?
And how many games are already weeded out by competition?
For example, the last post addressed to me tried to counterpoint on LoL by suggesting players are not in fact paying for content regularly that they have no knowledge on if they will enjoy. The reality is that it's a regular occurrence in LoL because the sales of new characters is pretty important. There's no certainty whatsoever that they are enjoying the content they are investing into, the only motivation is the notion of staying competitive. It's ironic that the point to be made isn't that it's even saying the game is fun to play, but that the game attracts those that are primarily satisfied by "winning" over their competitors. There's no objective point to be made of the game's quality there, and that's rather the point that the quality of the game has become a tertiary concern compared to the hype and maintaining an influx of users. The monetisation model relies on mass volume and these purchases that results. Just consider how much hype was engineered around a video for skin textures recently. Selling an idea far outstrips the matter of what the product even is in this case.
Also for example, the response given to one of your posts suggesting the focus of the topic, that then does not address the fact that your other post expounds on said topic quite a bit.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You cannot argue there is no enjoyment whatsoever. Otherwise, why would millions of people stay.
In fact, in the absence of evidence (do you have a survey showing that most LoL players do not enjoy playing at all, but only winning?), it is much more reasonable to assume there is some enjoyment also in the gameplay.
Otherwise, since there are so many other competitive games out there, they can easily choose one that give them the satisfaction of winning and fun (subjective) gameplay.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin