Originally posted by Aelious

The biggest risk to current F2P games come with EQN.  It's a big IP and if it's a quality game not only will subs move but also free players.

There i a lot of time between now and EQN's release.

Smedley has said that the future is f2p, but then he also thought the future was themepark at one point.  And he was correct both times, but that was immediate future.  If there is a clear shift in demand by the time that EQN is ready don't be surprised if EQN is a sub game.

Originally posted by Onomas

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Onomas

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Onomas

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by greenreen 

These are the credits for the games he has been involved in listed on Wikipedia. I see few F2P listed there. What makes him an authority on the subject? His experience is mostly with just one company too. Just because someone publishes a book it never meant they knew best, remember that phrase, those who can't - teach. 

He devloped and ran Metaplace.com. He also doesn't exist in a vacuum and spends a lot of time consulting. Is it your contention that since you've played a lot of video games your personal view of game design and how the industry works is more valid than the experience of those who have been successfully working in the industry for 30 or so years? If so, don't worry, there's a lot of people here like that, so you're in good company. 

 

You don't need an expert to coin a term. Everyone knows a very small number of players pay through the roof. It is not uncommon to name a customer segment. So he borrows the term from the gambling industry and it sticks.

Why is his expertise relevant?

Funny you are the only one that uses it here, and call  people that dont even buy from a cash shop a WHALE. Its kind of derogatory and yoiu should not use it. Since you dont know who spends money over the rest, calling someone who pays for a sub a whale is not only ignorant but childish all together.

 

And for the record that term is stupid beyond belief being used in the gaming industry. Just saying.

you are just wrong.

First, i never call people a whale for paying a sub. That is NOT the defintiion. I have also never called a particular person a whale, since i do not know who is one.

Secondly, i will use the term when it fits the meaning .. i.e. ... the few players who pays a lot more than the norm in a F2P game. Do you have another term for it?

If you are so easier offended on the internet, it is your problem, not mine.

 

No im not wrong, you have even called me a whale in a different post.

Just because someone tries to be cool and coin a new phrase or term doesnt mean you need to use it. That term is derogatory and just stupid. Many here dislike that including myself.

There are many terms for race, sex, culture, religion but just because they are around doesnt mean you have to use it.

There is no term required for people that wish to pay for their entertainment, everyone pays at one point in life to someone.

Its your way to by sly and insult someone, but nonetheless its a derogatory term.

It's an industry standard slang for someone who pays a lot in F2P / Cash Shop games especially where there is no subscription.  They are "big" spenders, like a whale.  People who spend a lot in cash shops are referred to as whales.  There are a lot of industry terms with meanings that are less than cuddly.

And that makes it less derogatory? Just because a raper calls women the B word, its ok to label them all like that? Sorry but no go here. Terms are sometimes better not used. What if a poster was over weight and he called them a whale? Would kind of be insulting, yes? Again, its a sly way to insult someone. And that term isnt even a widely used here, its a gambling term coined by one guy and thats all of the sudden a industry term? Call them high rollers then, atleast thats not derogatory.

Lol, it isnt an insult... It is a term to refer to big cash shop spenders... Get over yourself.

Originally posted by Onomas
Who said anything about rape? Thats not even a subject to even joke about. Whats wrong with you?

You did:

"And that makes it less derogatory? Just because a raper calls women the B word, its ok to label them all like that? Sorry but no go here. Terms are sometimes better not used. What if a poster was over weight and he called them a whale? Would kind of be insulting, yes? Again, its a sly way to insult someone. And that term isnt even a widely used here, its a gambling term coined by one guy and thats all of the sudden a industry term? Call them high rollers then, atleast thats not derogatory."

Originally posted by Boneserino

Originally posted by Aelious
In legitimately worried about a lot of the F2P games over the next few years. There are new, quality titles coming out that will either free (EQN) or sub (AA possibly) and wild cards such as ESO or Wildstar (not sure on model announcement).

Each of these could chip away at the playerbases of every game but F2P titles are the most vulnerable due to a smaller percentage supporting the game. I wonder how many titles will be closed or unsupported by 2015.

Actually I would say that assumption is probably wrong.  The majority of the player base is likely playing for free.  Those that are paying are probably enjoying the game and are invested in playing it.

However in sub based games there are probably lots of people thinking I am paying 15 a month and not really enjoying this game. Maybe it is time to switch.

Each player lost in a sub based game is a paying one.  So a bigger proportion of paying players will likely be leaving the sub based game.

All speculation of course, but I think my scenario makes as much sense as  the other, without conclusive evidence.

For some games a free to play game leads to a playerbase which are not dedicated to the game. The community suffers from it,  the gameplay and pvp, since you will have players who will play the game more superficial. Because you never really quit in free to play games since there is no sub, you draw attention to all kind of people, you draw more attention to hackers and exploiters. In general the quality of the playerbase itself gets weaken.

But in both cases there are players who invest into the games. In sub games, all of them invest with their monthly fee and in free to play games only a lower percentage will do. Both will think about if they enjoy a game and invest more in the future or just leave. Each paying player in a free to play  is the core of the income of the game and the whole game is directed with the aim to get as many as possible customer, the "free to play" just draws attention as a marketing instrument and a lot of the development and game content is directed towards the ingame cash shop. Wheras the games with a monthly sub have their development concentrated on pure gameplay content and possible further expansions.

This is the big difference and the quality of the content plays a role here. F2P is for sure not doing good for the gaming community or improving games and creative content you wish for.

Originally posted by KingJiggly

Originally posted by Onomas

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Onomas

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Onomas

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by greenreen 

These are the credits for the games he has been involved in listed on Wikipedia. I see few F2P listed there. What makes him an authority on the subject? His experience is mostly with just one company too. Just because someone publishes a book it never meant they knew best, remember that phrase, those who can't - teach. 

He devloped and ran Metaplace.com. He also doesn't exist in a vacuum and spends a lot of time consulting. Is it your contention that since you've played a lot of video games your personal view of game design and how the industry works is more valid than the experience of those who have been successfully working in the industry for 30 or so years? If so, don't worry, there's a lot of people here like that, so you're in good company. 

 

You don't need an expert to coin a term. Everyone knows a very small number of players pay through the roof. It is not uncommon to name a customer segment. So he borrows the term from the gambling industry and it sticks.

Why is his expertise relevant?

Funny you are the only one that uses it here, and call  people that dont even buy from a cash shop a WHALE. Its kind of derogatory and yoiu should not use it. Since you dont know who spends money over the rest, calling someone who pays for a sub a whale is not only ignorant but childish all together.

 

And for the record that term is stupid beyond belief being used in the gaming industry. Just saying.

you are just wrong.

First, i never call people a whale for paying a sub. That is NOT the defintiion. I have also never called a particular person a whale, since i do not know who is one.

Secondly, i will use the term when it fits the meaning .. i.e. ... the few players who pays a lot more than the norm in a F2P game. Do you have another term for it?

If you are so easier offended on the internet, it is your problem, not mine.

 

No im not wrong, you have even called me a whale in a different post.

Just because someone tries to be cool and coin a new phrase or term doesnt mean you need to use it. That term is derogatory and just stupid. Many here dislike that including myself.

There are many terms for race, sex, culture, religion but just because they are around doesnt mean you have to use it.

There is no term required for people that wish to pay for their entertainment, everyone pays at one point in life to someone.

Its your way to by sly and insult someone, but nonetheless its a derogatory term.

It's an industry standard slang for someone who pays a lot in F2P / Cash Shop games especially where there is no subscription.  They are "big" spenders, like a whale.  People who spend a lot in cash shops are referred to as whales.  There are a lot of industry terms with meanings that are less than cuddly.

And that makes it less derogatory? Just because a raper calls women the B word, its ok to label them all like that? Sorry but no go here. Terms are sometimes better not used. What if a poster was over weight and he called them a whale? Would kind of be insulting, yes? Again, its a sly way to insult someone. And that term isnt even a widely used here, its a gambling term coined by one guy and thats all of the sudden a industry term? Call them high rollers then, atleast thats not derogatory.

Lol, it isnt an insult... It is a term to refer to big cash shop spenders... Get over yourself.

I think some people actively try to feel insulted at every possible opportunity. 

  Regarding the op's thoughts/opinion , while I do understand where you are "coming from", In my opinion, those 15 dollar subs are perfectly fine. Is it a gamble for us as consumers ? of course but I have to say that ftp is not a model that I care for. In some instances the game company goes insane with their little cash-shops, look at sw:tor for instance. Also,the thrust of the game devs about the game changes from how to keep adding great content,to,what can I add to make more money, which I think is ultimately bad for games and gamers.

Originally posted by Praetalus

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Fearum
If gaming is your hobby and the game is worth 15$ a month it is fine. If you bitch about it being too much your either playing a shitty game or your just a cheap bastard and need to find a new hobby. I doubt there is cheaper hobby out there.

thats not really the point.

Example:

if the total number of MMO on the market was ==1.

And the sub fee was 15$ a month.

Well paying 15$ a month grants you access to 100% of all MMO.

 

Now if we keep the same sub fee cost, but increase the number of total MMO on the market to 5.

Playing 15$ a month only grants me access to 20% of all MMO.

 

Increase the total number of MMO again to 10.

And 15$ a month only gets me access to 10% of all MMO.

 

As we go on, the total number of MMO keep going up, but the price still remains the same. So at some point, most of the MMO will fall off the list, as we can see this more often today with so much MMO inflation.

 

The prices have to drop, or place a halt on the number of total MMO on the market. One has to give out for the other. Which would you rather have?

Wow... fuzzy math to it's finest. It's also flawed logic. Your $15 a month grants you access to %100 of each game. Do you understand how insane what you said sounds? That's like me saying that I'm eating at 5 restuarants today cause I feel like it and wanting them to lower the price on the menu as I'll only get to enjoy one meal fully. You pay the full price for the games and how you break it down is up to you and your available time. 

 

 

no you just didnt read.

Originally posted by strangiato2112

Originally posted by Aelious

The biggest risk to current F2P games come with EQN.  It's a big IP and if it's a quality game not only will subs move but also free players.

There i a lot of time between now and EQN's release.

Smedley has said that the future is f2p, but then he also thought the future was themepark at one point.  And he was correct both times, but that was immediate future.  If there is a clear shift in demand by the time that EQN is ready don't be surprised if EQN is a sub game.

I hope EQN is a sub game.

The new generation mmos with an ingame cash shop and "free to play" models have a different aim on developing a game.

The conventionel mmorpgs with a sub where developers did invest all their effort into the gameplay content did create games/mmorpgs with the aim to offer a high quality game that their customer are satisified and stick with the game for longer.

Now in a f2p game, the developer invest a lot of time to adjust their gameplay content with the ingame shop and at the end a game is not anymore purely developed to satisfy the players but to get as many players buying stuff in their shop. The game development itself did change into a pure cash instrument and the former concentrations on game quality development suffers.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by spizz

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by steelheartx
I'd pay $25 a month for a game that could keep me entralled for three or more years.

Why should i do that when there are 20 games that can last me 3 month each, and they are all free?

Why should someone play so many games ? 

Who cares why? The point is that most players play games that way - console, PC or online. It's not because they're not engaging, it's just how most people play video games. As a result, $25 a month may work for you but there are very few you in the market. 

I have seen no evidence to support this statement.  I do not know of anyone personally that plays 10 games or so at a time, that the OP of this was talking about.   Also, MMOs traditionally offer more updates, content, and take more infrastructure to provide quality service to people, so I play plants vs. zombies or angry birds, and try to put a AAA MMO on the same level of discussion of that or farmville is flawed to begin with imo.

Some non-MMO games do have support systems, online responsibilities and more things, like a MMO, but a lot of stuff doesn't.  A discussion should involve games that are comparible, when it comes to fees, as Madden football does not traditionally have a free, where as MMOs do, they are not the same.

I would counter that a lot of current MMOs are shallow, and do not have quality systems in place for retention, verse the majority of gamers have gamer ADD, so every game should be made to have a short shelf life for players.

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

Didn't vote. Not a choice I liked.

What's wrong with old school?

Many posters enjoy using the "Appeal to Novelty" argument.

Originally posted by Onomas

 

No im not wrong, you have even called me a whale in a different post.

Just because someone tries to be cool and coin a new phrase or term doesnt mean you need to use it. That term is derogatory and just stupid. Many here dislike that including myself.

There are many terms for race, sex, culture, religion but just because they are around doesnt mean you have to use it.

There is no term required for people that wish to pay for their entertainment, everyone pays at one point in life to someone.

Its your way to by sly and insult someone, but nonetheless its a derogatory term.

Are you a whale? Did you spend much more than average in a F2P game? If the definition fit, then you are one, whether i call you or not.

Just like i free-ride on F2P game.

If you have such a thin skin, it is your problem.

Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by KingJiggly

 

Lol, it isnt an insult... It is a term to refer to big cash shop spenders... Get over yourself.

I think some people actively try to feel insulted at every possible opportunity. 

Yeah .. i think i will just ignore them, and use clearly defined industry terms like whales as i see fit.

Whale is a term that has been used in the Casino/Gambling world forever. For those offended, get over yourselves.

/boggled

Originally posted by Boneserino

"Games arent run on thin air, as some people seem to think, people have to be paid, resources such as power, bandwidth, etc etc. all have to be paid for, personally i'd rather pay through a sub fee that gives me 100 percent access to game content, than pay through the nose for 'extras' in the cash shops of various F2P games. "

I respect your right to choose sub based games.  I think you are going to find it increasingly hard though.

However, when you make statements like the one above which is completely biased and untrue, when you refer to "paying thru the nose" it just shows your ignorance.  Paying thru the nose is a choice.  A sub is not. 

Also F2P games make money, otherwise they would not be operating.  Another false statement on your part.  But hey, you are just another of the Pay 2 Win crowd spouting the same tired story.

 

There are also F2P games that can't make money, or--if they can--cannot feed enough wallets and bodies to make their owners happy.  Which is why we've had a dozen or so close in the last few months.

Someone above said something along the lines of "I don't mind the guy who pays $50 to the cash store, because they keep the game afloat."  In some cases, that might be true.  But then there are other cases where the guy who pays $50 to the cash store cannot keep the game afloat, and what then?  The game gets yanked out from under everyone and the $50 counts for nothing.

Don't get me wrong.  The same thing happens in subscription games too.  It's just something inherent in the genre that we can't avoid.  Personally, I'd be more comfortable in a game where the costs are more evenly distributed among the players than borne entirely on a few "whales" (which is, in case you haven't noticed, a term that started in the casino industry).  When the game depends on a few whales to keep it afloat, when the whales get used up, the game folds.

And the reverse is also true.  You might have people who spend hundreds--if not thousands--of dollars buying item store currency.  But the hundreds and thousands they spend aren't enough to cover the costs, their game gets yanked away from them, and the person has nothing to show for it.

At least the casinos treat their whales well.  The only thing that awaits an MMO whale is the harpoon of regret when the game gets pulled out from under him.

Originally posted by Aelious

Per your own words more people play free than sub (or purchase in CS) so when new games release F2P titles are at bigger risk for revenue loss because the free players are irrelevent and spenders a lot more impactful if lost.

 

The biggest risk to current F2P games come with EQN.  It's a big IP and if it's a quality game not only will subs move but also free players.

So? Any business has risks. It is not like there is none in a sub game. And the good news is that it is easier for F2P games to attract new players because of its low bar to entry.

And secondly, i am a player, why should i care? In fact, i am the one who is moving (or at least try out) the new games.

BTW, the "moving" concept does not really apply to F2P games. You need "move" .. you just decide to play other games now. You can always go back. In a sub game, you "move" because if you are not subbing, you are not there in the game.

There is no such thing in a F2P game. I can pop into STO anytime i want to .. to play a 20 min mission, and may be i won't for the next 3 weeks.

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Originally posted by Boneserino

"Games arent run on thin air, as some people seem to think, people have to be paid, resources such as power, bandwidth, etc etc. all have to be paid for, personally i'd rather pay through a sub fee that gives me 100 percent access to game content, than pay through the nose for 'extras' in the cash shops of various F2P games. "

I respect your right to choose sub based games.  I think you are going to find it increasingly hard though.

However, when you make statements like the one above which is completely biased and untrue, when you refer to "paying thru the nose" it just shows your ignorance.  Paying thru the nose is a choice.  A sub is not. 

Also F2P games make money, otherwise they would not be operating.  Another false statement on your part.  But hey, you are just another of the Pay 2 Win crowd spouting the same tired story.

 

There are also F2P games that can't make money, or--if they can--cannot feed enough wallets and bodies to make their owners happy.  Which is why we've had a dozen or so close in the last few months.

Someone above said something along the lines of "I don't mind the guy who pays $50 to the cash store, because they keep the game afloat."  In some cases, that might be true.  But then there are other cases where the guy who pays $50 to the cash store cannot keep the game afloat, and what then?  The game gets yanked out from under everyone and the $50 counts for nothing.

Don't get me wrong.  The same thing happens in subscription games too.  It's just something inherent in the genre that we can't avoid.  Personally, I'd be more comfortable in a game where the costs are more evenly distributed among the players than borne entirely on a few "whales" (which is, in case you haven't noticed, a term that started in the casino industry).  When the game depends on a few whales to keep it afloat, when the whales get used up, the game folds.

And the reverse is also true.  You might have people who spend hundreds--if not thousands--of dollars buying item store currency.  But the hundreds and thousands they spend aren't enough to cover the costs, their game gets yanked away from them, and the person has nothing to show for it.

At least the casinos treat their whales well.  The only thing that awaits an MMO whale is the harpoon of regret when the game gets pulled out from under him.

 Other than CoH, what f2p game has closed in the last few months?

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Originally posted by Boneserino

"Games arent run on thin air, as some people seem to think, people have to be paid, resources such as power, bandwidth, etc etc. all have to be paid for, personally i'd rather pay through a sub fee that gives me 100 percent access to game content, than pay through the nose for 'extras' in the cash shops of various F2P games. "

I respect your right to choose sub based games.  I think you are going to find it increasingly hard though.

However, when you make statements like the one above which is completely biased and untrue, when you refer to "paying thru the nose" it just shows your ignorance.  Paying thru the nose is a choice.  A sub is not. 

Also F2P games make money, otherwise they would not be operating.  Another false statement on your part.  But hey, you are just another of the Pay 2 Win crowd spouting the same tired story.

 

There are also F2P games that can't make money, or--if they can--cannot feed enough wallets and bodies to make their owners happy.  Which is why we've had a dozen or so close in the last few months.

Someone above said something along the lines of "I don't mind the guy who pays $50 to the cash store, because they keep the game afloat."  In some cases, that might be true.  But then there are other cases where the guy who pays $50 to the cash store cannot keep the game afloat, and what then?  The game gets yanked out from under everyone and the $50 counts for nothing.

Don't get me wrong.  The same thing happens in subscription games too.  It's just something inherent in the genre that we can't avoid.  Personally, I'd be more comfortable in a game where the costs are more evenly distributed among the players than borne entirely on a few "whales" (which is, in case you haven't noticed, a term that started in the casino industry).  When the game depends on a few whales to keep it afloat, when the whales get used up, the game folds.

And the reverse is also true.  You might have people who spend hundreds--if not thousands--of dollars buying item store currency.  But the hundreds and thousands they spend aren't enough to cover the costs, their game gets yanked away from them, and the person has nothing to show for it.

At least the casinos treat their whales well.  The only thing that awaits an MMO whale is the harpoon of regret when the game gets pulled out from under him.

 Other than CoH, what f2p game has closed in the last few months?

Zynga is shutting down 11 games.  Does that count?