I find most MMO's boring and mundane and that includes subscription based games.  I do however see more copy cat free to play games than I do subscription based.  It seems that most subscription based games have more of a story to them instead of just throwing you into the game and having you kill 20 pigs with your weapon of choice.  This is how the free to play and many of the subscription based games are usually like.  Why should we have to go to the quest?  Why can't the quest come to us instead?  Why should there be a need to kill 20 pigs or chickens for a quest.  Quests should be more epic.  Like you go destroy a bandit camp that's been terrorizing the local town.  No quest to kill such and such number of bandits.  Just destroy the camp.  If you have need of friends to help you with the quest then so be it.  The point to all this is most free to play and subscription based games are lacking considerably, however free to play seem to be more so than that of subscription based. 

For my part, no matter how next-gen or well-reviewed a free to play game might be, I still can't stand to play it for very long. In some respect every F2P game I've taken a good look at feels like adventuring in an infomercial to me. Everything is aimed at getting me to make that next little purchase, and it's usually not very subtle.

It's been a long while since major amusement parks in the West all went to a one-price model, instead of individual charges for every attraction... They found that the audience here prefers to pay once and forget about money for the rest of the day. Now, Tokyo Disneyland is the only one of the Disney worldwide parks that intentionally uses ticket books, instead of a one-price admission system. The only explanation I can reach is that it's cultural.

The same phenomenon seems to be applicable to MMOs, where the southeast asian audience strongly embraces the F2P model, while most of us Western players find it akin to playing the Home Shopping Network Online.

Originally posted by bobfish

Originally posted by Dana

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by ericbelser

Just a passing thought (that I don't know the answer to off the top of my head):

What is the relationship between advertising expenditures and press coverage? IE is the willingness of publications to review a game related to that games willingness to spend marketing bucks paying for advertising with that publication?

Not if that publication wants to maintain integrity. I can't speak for other outlets, but the two are un-related here. Usually it comes down to a combination of - available writing talent, willingness to cooperate of the dev team, and the liklihood that the articles will be read by a large number of people (ie: reader interest). Just a  thought.

 

I can vouch for the fact that they're entirely separate here. The people who handle the ads don't even live in the same country as those that do the editorial. I doubt Jon knows what a CPM is, much less worries about it when doing editorial.

 

 

Its a working relationship, both sides do things to keep each other sweet. From my experience the site will do anything that benefits them without money backing it up, obviously reviews / exclusive content / etc fall into this. When the developer wants the publication to do something out of the norm, that is when the publication will make subtle hints about how they'd like the developer to do a little more advertising on their site / magazine.

I'm not aware of any MMO site that has paid for reviews though, they all seem pretty honest at the moment.

Again, functionally speaking, rarely is it even the same two people. Most of the time, the people editorial guys deal with are not even the same people who are responsible for ads, just as the people selling the ads are not the same at the website. It's two completely separate relationships.

In fact, here, we even separate out the contests from the general editorial. At a most basic level, the contests are a form of "free" advertising, since their only cost is the prizes they give to you in exchange for the real-estate to do it. Again, different people on our end handle that.

I've been doing this my entire adult life at a host of different outlets and companies and never once have I been offered any quid pro quo on anything, nor seen it happen.

Honestly, the level of corruption some people assume exists just isn't there at the editorial level.

What I have seen happen, sometimes is reverse censorship, where a site is too timid to upset a major source of content by printing something true/negative, but again, that usually is something run across more often on fansites that rely exclusively on one developer for all their content and in the cases I've seen, the person has been set straight. ;)

Originally posted by Dana

 

Again, functionally speaking, rarely is it even the same two people. Most of the time, the people editorial guys deal with are not even the same people who are responsible for ads, just as the people selling the ads are not the same at the website. It's two completely separate relationships.

In fact, here, we even separate out the contests from the general editorial. At a most basic level, the contests are a form of "free" advertising, since their only cost is the prizes they give to you in exchange for the real-estate to do it. Again, different people on our end handle that.

I've been doing this my entire adult life at a host of different outlets and companies and never once have I been offered any quid pro quo on anything, nor seen it happen.

Honestly, the level of corruption some people assume exists just isn't there at the editorial level.

What I have seen happen, sometimes is reverse censorship, where a site is too timid to upset a major source of content by printing something true/negative, but again, that usually is something run across more often on fansites that rely exclusively on one developer for all their content and in the cases I've seen, the person has been set straight. ;)

Maybe it's just European sites that do the subtle hints for money. Had plenty of dealings where this has happened. It is never "you must pay us for us to do this", more "we're interested in doing this, but we notice that you haven't advertised on our site recently".

That of course is my perspective, as someone who works for a games publisher.

Originally posted by bobfish

Originally posted by Dana

 

Again, functionally speaking, rarely is it even the same two people. Most of the time, the people editorial guys deal with are not even the same people who are responsible for ads, just as the people selling the ads are not the same at the website. It's two completely separate relationships.

In fact, here, we even separate out the contests from the general editorial. At a most basic level, the contests are a form of "free" advertising, since their only cost is the prizes they give to you in exchange for the real-estate to do it. Again, different people on our end handle that.

I've been doing this my entire adult life at a host of different outlets and companies and never once have I been offered any quid pro quo on anything, nor seen it happen.

Honestly, the level of corruption some people assume exists just isn't there at the editorial level.

What I have seen happen, sometimes is reverse censorship, where a site is too timid to upset a major source of content by printing something true/negative, but again, that usually is something run across more often on fansites that rely exclusively on one developer for all their content and in the cases I've seen, the person has been set straight. ;)

 

Maybe it's just European sites that do the subtle hints for money. Had plenty of dealings where this has happened. It is never "you must pay us for us to do this", more "we're interested in doing this, but we notice that you haven't advertised on our site recently".

That of course is my perspective, as someone who works for a games publisher.

Of course, we are both only speaking from our own experience. Given I've spent most my time on the editorial side, I am speaking mostly about what developers ask of editorial.

What editorial asks of developers is another question. In my time on that side, I cannot say I ever felt pressured to free up money to secure a story, but no doubt there are people out there on both sides who act inappropriately.

Well it's true that in the f2p games the grind is more annoying then in most p2p games (not all but most), even with the 14.95 pack that most f2p mmos got.

It's very true that it costs more to get to the end lvls in a f2p game then in to a p2p one (considering that it would take same ammount of time).

It's true that most f2p don't bring something new to the table an interesting feature, anything at all. Most p2p mmos at least try tho 90% of them fail (to bring something interesting. Maybe that's why Atlantica is doing so well...something different from a f2p.

Now, the difference is once you get there you kinda can buy in any f2p mmo i know almost everything you want from the item mall with ingame currency so from that point on it really is free to play. They dont say that in the ads tho lol.

Originally posted by Inktomi

www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.phpOriginally posted by redcap036

 I would love to see a financial report on P2P vs F2P games that show how expensive it really is to play these games, over a short term and over a long term use, are P2P really cheaper and more for value than a F2P or are they cheaper?

Also let's stop pigeon holing these games, let's start naming them, which ones are rip off's and which ones are safe games and I'm talking about both types of games F2P & P2P,

No more hyper-theoretical or personal opinions, lets see the numbers and name the games individually, then let's compare!
 

Ok, I can do that please allow me to give you the link with and explanation to those not stock market savvy.

First up I will look at some co's that have successful games in the F2P arena;

1) Perfectt world co. trades here under PWRD, they are currently worth a touch over 1 billion dollars and last year they made rought over 1,400,000 usd. Not a bad play on their part, their biggest winner is Perfect World Int. ( I played the game for 1 day )

2) Next up is a mixed Bag called Shanda Interactive, they trade under SNDA for about 50 bucks a share, they are worth approx 3 1/2 billion dollars and made about the same in revenue. I would say they have a mixed bundle and a unique marketing play with Maplestory, not only is the game F2P with cashshop, but they also sell cards that can be used online. Their biggest failure IMO is DDonline. They also make the very popular Co. of Heroes, big seller and a big company.

3) and last but not least in the F2P corner I will put Gravity games, so small. Trades under GRVY for about a buck and make roughly 23 million last year. ALL OF THEIR GAMES ARE F2P. From Ragnarok Online and ROSE online and the newest one is Requiem:Bloodymare. Which I am currently playing, I feel it's very good for the budget and will continue playing it for a few months. I like it and will invest in the cashshop through a subscription and certain items (a darn mount).

Ok, now you can see sort of what the F2p model companies make, now are you ready to be amazed?

ATVI , this is the combined company of Activision and Blizzard Ent. realistically a pure game company between console and PC. They made about 3 billion last year and just posted earnings of record number, close to 1 billion in sales. Biggest sales:WOW and Geetar heero.

NCsoft, now they dont trade here so I had to do a little digging. They trade on the Korean Exchange for a wopping 145 dollars in american money. Here is a news article stating that they posted record number and due to the release of AION they made over 27 million just in profit alone. They are know for City of Heroes/Villains, Lineage 1 and 2 and the newest is the AION phenomena that is taking over the eastern MMO market by storm. Don't believe me? Read the articles. And all these games I mentioned are P2P for NCSoft, With the exception of dungeon runners and xteel. 

Both mythic( WAR ), Turbine (Lotro) and Funcom trades in Olso, Financial Report Here. They made about 40 million bucks for the entire year of 2008. Yay D: But they are all basically pay 2 play models. Bad ones, but still.

I hope this helps what you asked for, I enjoyed writing it.

Now my thoughts on F2P and P2P. First off Free isnt really free, I played runes from closed beta and can tell you that game is cashshop dependant and imbalanced due to the power of the CS. It cost me almost 15 bucks a month just to keep my storage open. And then when you got down to the upgrades and mounts, forget it. I know people that went all out and spent almost 1,00 dollars already. I quit it about 4 weeks ago after they released a cashshop dependent instance, that was too much for me. The game isnt half bad on the play, but it's very limited compared to P2P models.

Perfect world, when I started the game and created a character, some of the customizations used cashshop. Thats redicuslous! @ Character creation! Deleted.

WoW is wow, and you get exactly what you pay for. However the first thing you see is the account pade when you start the game and they offer you packages ranging from 15 a month to over 80 for 6 months and up. They hit you early. But what you see is what you get, for 15 bucks it becomes just a time investment after that. Want that new mount, grind for it. Want some new gear, raid for it. Want that new enchant, sell stuff for it,rinse twice and repeat.

So compare the two, I think Mr Aihoshi's point is that this is a customer friendly model due to tough economic times. I agree, it is attractive and fun to download software and play for free for a bit. NEW GAME WOOW! But do these games have the staying power to outlast the larger co's that bring in steady revenue? I think he ended the article with the correct note it's about quality. 

 

 I hope this helps what you asked for, I enjoyed writing it- I enjoyed reading it as well and will go over it a few times more, a nice synopsis all round far as I can tell, thank you.

Al thou it was not quite what I was asking for, my bad, I think I could have worded my request better, I was looking more for a players point of view financial layout of what someone would spend playing a F2P vs P2P and how they compare, everyone keeps claiming that F2P are the more expensive than P2P, but no one has backed it up with some facts and names, add to this everyone has there own preconceived view points about these games,(F2P & P2P) it seems if they have played them or not, so when we get to this stage in the thread, I say it's time to bring out the calculator and let the numbers talk instead of the players.
So in other words a list of F2P and a list of P2P, listing there cost's from purchase, monthly fee's or how many coin shop buys have to be made to reach endgame or highest level in game, how long it take on average to reach endgame.
Then there is the age old question, which F2P are able to be played all the way through without spending RL money,( to date ) I can think of at least two F2P games that let the players do this.
What about the P2P how many months worth of sub's does it take to get to the endgame, based on reasonable play time,( e.g. between two hours and fours hours per-night, not the whole game crammed into one month, being played 24 hours around the clock )
I'm just sick and tired of hearsay and rumours being the only evidence.

@ at everyone;

Also I want people to start naming the games that HAVE ripped them off,( F2P & P2P )
Games names, how long you played for, how much you spent,( cash/item shop or monthly sub's or both) and why you think you were ripped off by that game/company?
 

NO more HEARSAY, NO more RUMOURS, JUST the FACT'S let's find out the TRUTH!

FranklyI haven't yet found a cash shop game than didn't smack me in the face with a steep grind starting with the first level. The other ubiquitous feature is aa array of mobs, all identical or at most of two to three types, waiting to be mowed down like wheat standing in a field doing nothing. You can't move without bumping into them. The mob drops are universally horrid and won't even provide a comfortable set of gear for your level. It's as if they took the worst features of the worst subscription games wrapped them up in a sometimes not so pretty package with a label that says "but it's free!"

I understand walling off later content for the paying customers but take a lesson from the drug dealers. The first taste needs to be both truly free and a hell of a rush to be addictive. Game play actually needs to be better than the first few hours of a subcription game to draw people in. Until the game can get people over the hump of you pay money so you can kill more stuff people in the west aren't going to take the games very seriously. If gamers don't don't take the games seriously the press won't either.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Originally posted by bmdevine

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Well first off games like Perfect World, Runes of magic, Altantica have racheted up the quality in this marketplace.  Anyone of them could compete with the subscription market games.  There are more of these coming.

While I know these publishers are in the business of making money, I find these games are really not free to play unless you want to always be a 2nd class citizen.  I actually find them to be more expensive than the subscription games if you intend to "keep up with the Jones".

I do play some of these games, but don't mind considering being a 2nd class player, I spend very carefully in these games.  But that means that pvp is pretty much out of the question and features like Territory Wars in Perfect World also. So you have to be content with excluding yourself from major portions of the game if you intend to not spend much on it.

I have to catorigize (sic) all the publishers of these three games as overly greedy at the moment, although I might consider a subscription plan if they ever offered one.

I realize it's currently in fashion to label publishers of F2P titles as greedy, but I'd like to hear someone articulate a coherent rationale for that characterization.  I haven't heard one yet, and, unless I'm interpreting the relevant posts incorrectly, it sounds like they're being labeled as greedy because they create an environment in which there is a possibility that some people may spend more than they would on a monthly subscription.  That attribution seems to ignore the following things:

1 - The vast majority of the content is given away for free;

2 - There is no requirement that anyone purchase anything from the cash malls; and

3 - Because of 1 and 2, the publishers are taking a risk that publishers of subscription games do not take.

It seems a bit paradoxical in light of these items to characterize the publishers as greedy.  They leave it up to the players to decide whether to spend any money at all and what to spend it on.  A player's own fiscal irresponsibility or ardent desire to be better than those around him does not, at least in my mind, make the publishers "overly greedy."  Take a look at SOE and the fact that they've started to implement cash malls in subscription games, and compare that with these publishers.  I'm not an SOE-basher, and don't want to divert the thread from the original F2P topic, but the word "overly" as used here seems a bit overly over the top.

All I can say is you have not played any of these games extensively, hence don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Let's take Perfect World as an example(they all have similar prices).  A mount costs $20-30 and to speed it up you can spend another $15 on it.  Faster wings and the speed ups again the same.  Charms, which are a necessity in pvp, easily $15 a month, leveling enhancers again easily $15 a month.  Have you figured out where I am going yet, because I have not hit on the big ticket items yet....  How about a pet that costs roughly $250, again highly desirable for a pet class in pvp...

I have not even touched on getting enhanced equipment.

Sorry to make you look ridiculous, but then you asked for it.

Yes, you don't have to spend a dime, that is quite true, but then you are not in any way competitive.  You will end of many levels below friends you make since many of them are using the cash shop.

Not sure who is the clueless here really... I've played both types extensively. Both business models are rip off if you want to be among the top ranking very quickly.

It really depends on how much you play each day if you play a lot you will be able to become 1st rank in both types since you will earn tons of ingame money to buy whatever you want.

If you're looking for getting uber ASAP within a month or 2 to obtain the best equipment you need to invest a lot of real cash on both type of games.

Lots of people spend lots of real money to buy ingame money/items for subscription games and good example is EVE online for instance in my corp we had about half buying ingame isk just to be able to buy the nice stuff they wanted.

They were not forced to do it but still they did.

The amount they spent each month was staggering some spent easily 200+ USD a month extra not including the subscription fee. Some months they could spend their entire wage just to buy stuff.

This is to be able to do hardcore pvp since a good ship and equipment is very pricy and well money making in EVE is not easy unless you got access to the good spots for good rats or minerals.

So my corp members spent easily 1.000+ USD a year on EVE.. they open their wallet too easy. :)

So frankly calling others clueless is just stupid since you only write based on your own experience not taking in consideration that your experience is subjective.

If you want to become top in either model prepare to

a) spend lots of real money 

b) play it for a long time to accumelate a lot of ingame money

c) cheat/scam

Option A is for those who have to rush and become best as quick as possible.

Option B is for those with patience but then I would say F2P is more worth it since if you don't are in a hurry to become uber then you spend nothing except time.

Option C is self explaining and unfortunatly based on my own experience it seems like subscription type games has lots of more scam attempts than F2P games. Not sure why but it's my experience that is.

The problem is when you have invested lots of your time into any game you tend to stick with it no matter how bad it has become. And try to tell yourself it's still good.. :)

In the end it doesn't really matter what model you choose just choose the game you like.

If you're filthy rich in real life you can buy whatever you want in both games for real money.

If you're poor as me you need to spend lots of time to accumelate wealth and items and thus I'm happy that F2P games have become as good as they're now the only thing I pay for now is my internet and electricity..

And I'm pretty sure the same % that buys stuff in F2P games also buys stuff in subscription type of games as well.

In the end if you have a habit of buying ingame items/money for real money you will do it in any type of game models doesn't matter which.

I think that F2P is getting better media coverage now which is a good thing because there is lots of good games here as well and more will be comming as time passes.

The more options given to us the gamers the better.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Originally posted by bmdevine

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Well first off games like Perfect World, Runes of magic, Altantica have racheted up the quality in this marketplace.  Anyone of them could compete with the subscription market games.  There are more of these coming.

While I know these publishers are in the business of making money, I find these games are really not free to play unless you want to always be a 2nd class citizen.  I actually find them to be more expensive than the subscription games if you intend to "keep up with the Jones".

I do play some of these games, but don't mind considering being a 2nd class player, I spend very carefully in these games.  But that means that pvp is pretty much out of the question and features like Territory Wars in Perfect World also. So you have to be content with excluding yourself from major portions of the game if you intend to not spend much on it.

I have to catorigize (sic) all the publishers of these three games as overly greedy at the moment, although I might consider a subscription plan if they ever offered one.

I realize it's currently in fashion to label publishers of F2P titles as greedy, but I'd like to hear someone articulate a coherent rationale for that characterization.  I haven't heard one yet, and, unless I'm interpreting the relevant posts incorrectly, it sounds like they're being labeled as greedy because they create an environment in which there is a possibility that some people may spend more than they would on a monthly subscription.  That attribution seems to ignore the following things:

1 - The vast majority of the content is given away for free;

2 - There is no requirement that anyone purchase anything from the cash malls; and

3 - Because of 1 and 2, the publishers are taking a risk that publishers of subscription games do not take.

It seems a bit paradoxical in light of these items to characterize the publishers as greedy.  They leave it up to the players to decide whether to spend any money at all and what to spend it on.  A player's own fiscal irresponsibility or ardent desire to be better than those around him does not, at least in my mind, make the publishers "overly greedy."  Take a look at SOE and the fact that they've started to implement cash malls in subscription games, and compare that with these publishers.  I'm not an SOE-basher, and don't want to divert the thread from the original F2P topic, but the word "overly" as used here seems a bit overly over the top.

All I can say is you have not played any of these games extensively, hence don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Let's take Perfect World as an example(they all have similar prices).  A mount costs $20-30 and to speed it up you can spend another $15 on it.  Faster wings and the speed ups again the same.  Charms, which are a necessity in pvp, easily $15 a month, leveling enhancers again easily $15 a month.  Have you figured out where I am going yet, because I have not hit on the big ticket items yet....  How about a pet that costs roughly $250, again highly desirable for a pet class in pvp...

I have not even touched on getting enhanced equipment.

Sorry to make you look ridiculous, but then you asked for it.

Yes, you don't have to spend a dime, that is quite true, but then you are not in any way competitive.  You will end of many levels below friends you make since many of them are using the cash shop.

It's kind of hard to "make me look ridiculous" if you don't even attempt to address my point.  What I was asking for was a coherent rationale for calling the companies greedy.  You haven't even come close to providing that.  All you've said is that you can't become "competitive" without spending money.  That sounds like more of a personal problem you have than greediness on the part of the companies putting out the games, and doesn't even begin to address the differing risk factors for the businesses.

Originally posted by zymurgeist

FranklyI haven't yet found a cash shop game than didn't smack me in the face with a steep grind starting with the first level. The other ubiquitous feature is aa array of mobs, all identical or at most of two to three types, waiting to be mowed down like wheat standing in a field doing nothing. You can't move without bumping into them. The mob drops are universally horrid and won't even provide a comfortable set of gear for your level. It's as if they took the worst features of the worst subscription games wrapped them up in a sometimes not so pretty package with a label that says "but it's free!"

I understand walling off later content for the paying customers but take a lesson from the drug dealers. The first taste needs to be both truly free and a hell of a rush to be addictive. Game play actually needs to be better than the first few hours of a subcription game to draw people in. Until the game can get people over the hump of you pay money so you can kill more stuff people in the west aren't going to take the games very seriously. If gamers don't don't take the games seriously the press won't either.

Sorry I must of missed it, which F2P games were you talking about and how long did you play each game for, also how much money did you spend on each game?

Originally posted by redcap036

Originally posted by zymurgeist

FranklyI haven't yet found a cash shop game than didn't smack me in the face with a steep grind starting with the first level. The other ubiquitous feature is aa array of mobs, all identical or at most of two to three types, waiting to be mowed down like wheat standing in a field doing nothing. You can't move without bumping into them. The mob drops are universally horrid and won't even provide a comfortable set of gear for your level. It's as if they took the worst features of the worst subscription games wrapped them up in a sometimes not so pretty package with a label that says "but it's free!"

I understand walling off later content for the paying customers but take a lesson from the drug dealers. The first taste needs to be both truly free and a hell of a rush to be addictive. Game play actually needs to be better than the first few hours of a subcription game to draw people in. Until the game can get people over the hump of you pay money so you can kill more stuff people in the west aren't going to take the games very seriously. If gamers don't don't take the games seriously the press won't either.

 

Sorry I must of missed it, which F2P games were you talking about and how long did you play each game for, also how much money did you spend on each game?

Too numerous to mention, too forgettable to recall. That's the point none of them held enough interest to get much of my time or money.

Hmmm....so you are all discussing F2P games. Do you all enjoy F2P games? I do, and I shall present to everyone here what happens when a F2P game become corrupted.

Silkroad Online is a F2P game that is very fun to play. Though it does have steep grinding, and that trend of a special item mall that you can buy items to pimp yourself out so that the non-item mall using person is at an extreme disadvantage, it is still very fun to play. So, how is it corrupted exactly? Bots, there's thousands of them running around in that game. There are so many bots that there are fewer legit players then there is bots in that game. The worst part? Joymax, the company that currently owns Silkroad Online, has done nothing serious to solve the bot problem for YEARS now!!!

Thus, a vicious cycle has appeared. Bots cause extreme crowdation of all servers on that game. This makes it impossible for a normal person to actually play this game, unless you use the item mall. In Silkroad Online, "silk" is the virtual money you buy with real money to purchase special items to improve your game play. Almost all legits are forced to buy a special item called a premium which allows you guarenteed access into a server even if it's crowded. Although it's not officially proven, it's not too hard to guess that Joymax is probably the mastermind behind the whole bot situation. Bots make good money for Joymax (if they are the ones selling them) and legits are forced to buy premiums to even play the game, even though Silkroad Online is supposed to be a F2P game. The worst part about this all is how effectively this plan has run for years.

Why do I say this? Because think about it, what if other F2P game owning companies followed Silkroad Online's example? All you got to do is have the servers of the game infested with bots, the company makes good money off of the bots, and all legits are now forced to buy special items on that game that allows them guarenteed access, thus more money for that company.

This is an evil cycle, which is why I am trying to start a silk boycott of Silkroad Online. Look at the Silkroad Online forum section of this website, and if you feel the need to state that F2P games should be actually free to play whenever you want, look me up there. Eventually, I shall create a new boycott forum in the general discussion area. Together, with Silkroad Online legits and people who support F2P games working together, we can make sure that no F2P games out there suffers the same fate that happened to Silkroad Online!!! Also, you'll help save Silkroad Online from bots if the boycott works here as well as on the other websites that we Silkroad legits are posting on.

If you wish to save F2P games, come see me on the Silk boycott forums. I will await you...

I don't like numbers when talking about F2P.It is a nice way to fake money to potential publishers or when trying to get funding.

A developer can go out and tell potential backers that the average amount of players is 50 million and that even if 3% pay money ,they can turn a legitimate profit.The problem is that when you have a F2P game,there is VERY little ACTUAL players/people playing th game.The majority around 90% maybe even higher are botters,multiple accounts under the same player.The accounts that are NON active ,paying customers are just leeches on the system,using up bandwidth and never giving anything to the game in any fashion.

F2P games have VERY low contributors to the game,witch is why the model ALWAYS tries to leech unfair amounts of cash from the actual paying players.The cost will actually run you MUCH more than a regualr P2P game and the games are ALWAYS second rate or a notch below P2P games for quality and content.

Like i said ,the F2P system is a bad one,it is just a nice way to fake an active busy game.It is no secret that MOST people want to play a game that looks busy and F2P games often look busy because of the fact you can make as many accounts as you want ,they are free.You might have several servers with millions of players,but the same players are on several servers and it is even possible for the same people to start up multiple players on each server all at the same time,especially since the quality of these games is so low,it is possible to run multiple screens at the same time.The ACTUAL amount of players that are active members of these games,with the legitimate player base is VERY low,like 1-5% of the actual numbers these games like to post.

Originally posted by Wizardry

The majority around 90% maybe even higher are botters,multiple accounts under the same player.

Source?

The accounts that are NON active ,paying customers are just leeches on the system,using up bandwidth and never giving anything to the game in any fashion.

I would think a paying customer that was not active would be the most profitable and least resource draining, no?

I don't know but that picture of the guy on this article looks like he's leaving a restroom and saying, "Give it a few minutes before you go in there."  Just has that look like he is in transit.