Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Aeonblades

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Aeonblades
I could post something inflammatory about MMORPG socialism and the new world order, but I'm just too tired to stir things up today. Suffice to say a lot of people hate F2P, and a lot of other people hate Subs.

And the same time, more and more games are F2P, and F2P has grown its market share.

 

Yet the most populated MMO's and those generally regarded as sub based have higher ratings and better player retention. It goes both ways. F2P has massive jumps that usually drops off after a year or two. I have played several F2P games that ended up just as desolate a year or so later. Don't get me wrong there are some F2P gems out there, I am enjoying F2P Vanguard again despite being mostly gear locked on my original character. I'm enjoying my new druid, SoE did a decent job with the new F2P restrictions if you start from scratch.

No one says otherwise. We are not talking about a single game. We are talking about the whole market. In fact, the nature of F2P is that players can game hop more.

The point is not whether a single F2P game will last longer, or more successful .. but that in totality they are taking the market away. In fact, i can see there will be even more F2P games produced, and each last a shorter period of time. Players will just, on average, play more games.

Probably the best post I have seen from you narius, no offense. Thanks for the explanation, and I agree with you :)

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by paulytheb

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by paulytheb

 

just fun to speculate.

Sure .. short term growth != long term viability. But at least that is market wide data, not just one company.

And no one knows exactly what will happen in 5 year. But does anyone think that F2P is going away in 2013?

Oh no, not going anywhere anytime soon.

Just wondering if the whole F2P movement can sustain long term. I also wonder what a new  blockbuster game would do to the market.

You gotta wonder where all that rapid growth stops.

Gaming companies industry wide, save for a few, are not really doing all that well. They have a lot riding on the new console launches coming up.

Originally posted by paulytheb

 

Someone is paying though. That is the thing. I'm not sure why, but someone is paying.

The whale pheonomenon is pretty well known. Usually only a small percentage of F2P players pay. And a even smaller percentage will pay a lot and make up for the rest of the free players.

It is not hard to believe. Let me use an example .. STO. I play it .. pretty good game and i am happy to play it for free. (I like Star Trek.)

But you can imagine some die-hard trekkies who would pay $$$ to get every last star ship, and uniform in the game. If they would spend thousand of dollars to go to convention, cos-play, or even model their home (http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2012/01/25/man-forced-to-dismantle-star-trek-living-room/), why wouldn't they spend a few hundred dollars in a game?

Originally posted by Aeonblades

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Aeonblades

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Aeonblades
I could post something inflammatory about MMORPG socialism and the new world order, but I'm just too tired to stir things up today. Suffice to say a lot of people hate F2P, and a lot of other people hate Subs.

And the same time, more and more games are F2P, and F2P has grown its market share.

 

Yet the most populated MMO's and those generally regarded as sub based have higher ratings and better player retention. It goes both ways. F2P has massive jumps that usually drops off after a year or two. I have played several F2P games that ended up just as desolate a year or so later. Don't get me wrong there are some F2P gems out there, I am enjoying F2P Vanguard again despite being mostly gear locked on my original character. I'm enjoying my new druid, SoE did a decent job with the new F2P restrictions if you start from scratch.

No one says otherwise. We are not talking about a single game. We are talking about the whole market. In fact, the nature of F2P is that players can game hop more.

The point is not whether a single F2P game will last longer, or more successful .. but that in totality they are taking the market away. In fact, i can see there will be even more F2P games produced, and each last a shorter period of time. Players will just, on average, play more games.

Probably the best post I have seen from you narius, no offense. Thanks for the explanation, and I agree with you :)

Yep. He does make another good point.

Originally posted by paulytheb

 

Oh no, not going anywhere anytime soon.

Just wondering if the whole F2P movement can sustain long term. I also wonder what a new  blockbuster game would do to the market.

You gotta wonder where all that rapid growth stops.

Gaming companies industry wide, save for a few, are not really doing all that well. They have a lot riding on the new console launches coming up.

It depends on what long term means? If you are talking about 5 year and out, it is really hard to predict. May be tablet is going to take over, and most games are $2 casual games. May be there is a new technology, and we jack our head into our entertainment, and your "cable" company will be charging a flat $200 per month.

Console/retail gaming has been declining .. may be the new gen console will bring another era of growth. May be people are sick of consoles, and the next gen will fail, and entertainment will shift from hard core gaming to something else.

I will admit i have no clue what long term will bring.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by paulytheb

 

Someone is paying though. That is the thing. I'm not sure why, but someone is paying.

The whale pheonomenon is pretty well known. Usually only a small percentage of F2P players pay. And a even smaller percentage will pay a lot and make up for the rest of the free players.

It is not hard to believe. Let me use an example .. STO. I play it .. pretty good game and i am happy to play it for free. (I like Star Trek.)

But you can imagine some die-hard trekkies who would pay $$$ to get every last star ship, and uniform in the game. If they would spend thousand of dollars to go to convention, cos-play, or even model their home (http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2012/01/25/man-forced-to-dismantle-star-trek-living-room/), why wouldn't they spend a few hundred dollars in a game?

 

I think its more the P.T Barnum effect. "There's a sucker born every minute".

Being F2P just exposes the games to more suckers.  :-)

I guess its working for now, and babies aren't gonna stop happening any time soon.

Then again there aren't very many circus around these days either.

Originally posted by paulytheb

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by paulytheb

 

Someone is paying though. That is the thing. I'm not sure why, but someone is paying.

The whale pheonomenon is pretty well known. Usually only a small percentage of F2P players pay. And a even smaller percentage will pay a lot and make up for the rest of the free players.

It is not hard to believe. Let me use an example .. STO. I play it .. pretty good game and i am happy to play it for free. (I like Star Trek.)

But you can imagine some die-hard trekkies who would pay $$$ to get every last star ship, and uniform in the game. If they would spend thousand of dollars to go to convention, cos-play, or even model their home (http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2012/01/25/man-forced-to-dismantle-star-trek-living-room/), why wouldn't they spend a few hundred dollars in a game?

 

I think its more the P.T Barnum effect. "There's a sucker born every minute".

Being F2P just exposes the games to more suckers.  :-)

I guess its working for now, and babies aren't gonna stop happening any time soon.

Then again there aren't very many circus around these days either.

 

I think you also have to consider a sucker may be just a person who has a different preference than you.

You, and I probably won't spend $200 on a virtual starship .. but for a trekkie (and i am kind of one, so i do see the logic), being able to drive a Galaxy (or whatever .. fill in the blankhere) starship is a dream come true, and $200 is a steal. So why is he a "sucker" when he is spending money he can afford, and he is enjoying every min of it?

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by paulytheb

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by paulytheb

 

...snip

...snip

 

...snip

 

I think you also have to consider a sucker may be just a person who has a different preference than you.

You, and I probably won't spend $200 on a virtual starship .. but for a trekkie (and i am kind of one, so i do see the logic), being able to drive a Galaxy (or whatever .. fill in the blankhere) starship is a dream come true, and $200 is a steal. So why is he a "sucker" when he is spending money he can afford, and he is enjoying every min of it?

 

He's a sucker because long, ago, in a galaxy far, far, away - everyone paid 15 a month and could all have a starship. Wait, wrong "star" that's "star wars". Ok, because Kaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhn. Now his starship costs 200 because other people don't want to pay 15 bucks toward his starship. See, it's the degredation of social MMO playing. No reason to group or share, I'm out for me.  ~teasing

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by paulytheb

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by paulytheb

 

Someone is paying though. That is the thing. I'm not sure why, but someone is paying.

The whale pheonomenon is pretty well known. Usually only a small percentage of F2P players pay. And a even smaller percentage will pay a lot and make up for the rest of the free players.

It is not hard to believe. Let me use an example .. STO. I play it .. pretty good game and i am happy to play it for free. (I like Star Trek.)

But you can imagine some die-hard trekkies who would pay $$$ to get every last star ship, and uniform in the game. If they would spend thousand of dollars to go to convention, cos-play, or even model their home (http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2012/01/25/man-forced-to-dismantle-star-trek-living-room/), why wouldn't they spend a few hundred dollars in a game?

 

I think its more the P.T Barnum effect. "There's a sucker born every minute".

Being F2P just exposes the games to more suckers.  :-)

I guess its working for now, and babies aren't gonna stop happening any time soon.

Then again there aren't very many circus around these days either.

 

I think you also have to consider a sucker may be just a person who has a different preference than you.

You, and I probably won't spend $200 on a virtual starship .. but for a trekkie (and i am kind of one, so i do see the logic), being able to drive a Galaxy (or whatever .. fill in the blankhere) starship is a dream come true, and $200 is a steal. So why is he a "sucker" when he is spending money he can afford, and he is enjoying every min of it?

 

I can't find the rest of the P.T Barnum quote, but when he made that famous quote he was talking about the sideshows in the circus that featured things like the strong man and the bearded lady and other oddities and outright falsehoods like a one horned goat as a unicorn.

And he said something along the lines of he would rather get a penny from everyone who came to walk the grounds then the nickel from the people who bought tickets for the big top. Thus the sucker quote. I didn't mean it to come off as derogative.

More people means more money I guess is what it comes down to.

Oh and I totally get the whale thing. No argument, i just don't think the whales alone can sustain the games.

City of Heroes allegedly had some very large whales.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Aeonblades
I could post something inflammatory about MMORPG socialism and the new world order, but I'm just too tired to stir things up today. Suffice to say a lot of people hate F2P, and a lot of other people hate Subs.

And the same time, more and more games are F2P, and F2P has grown its market share.

 

But not market share in hard $$$ signs. For those doubting: look at the figures of Zynga. Zillions of players, around 80.000.000 million for Farmville alone, dozens of games  ... and they need to resort to poker gambling sites to ensure income.

Zynga is no surprise really as most of these games tend to hide behind non stock rated companies. The moment Zynga went public it went down like a rock.

Also these macro figures don't say much about profitability for single games.   Sure the market went crazy with IPad apps, but what is the final revenue for each product ? What is the final turnover for the average F2P MMO?

TLDR: free to play is much about % instead of dollars and I don't see anyone moving 1 billion dollars on a yearly basis like WOW does.

In short: MMORPG's (more than other games) need long term play to become interesting. Hopping from one free dud to another isnt going anywhere.

It will be interesting to see if P2P can hold steady in these rocky times of  "everything for free".

As I said, I was most surprised a site like MMOdata.net has now become meaningless.

For all those talking about f2p has no long term viability you have no idea what you are talking about. 

Fact - f2p with a cs has been around longer than p2p.  Therefore it has just as much if not more long term viability than p2p.

You can talk about individual games all you want, however the model has been around longer.

For people talking about subscriptoins as a gold mine, for the most part (not all) f2p has generated more revenue than subscription.

For people stating that p2p games are better quality.  In that past that may have been true, in the last few years the f2p is just as high quality as p2p and no p2p quality has not gone down, it is leaps and bounds better than the quality of games in yesteryear.  We are all just used to the mechnics so we are bored of them but the quality is way better.

For all those stating that p2p means that developers have to put more and better content to keep someone paying and playing, that is the most rediculous of all claims.  When you sub, they have you at minimum for a month, yes they do need to have quality and conent to keep you for another month.  F2p and b2p is no different.  If the game isn't fun, you won't play, if they there is nothing in the cs you want, you won't pay.  IMO f2p has a much greater dependance on making the game fun and at the same time attactive enough to buy.   Too much of a grind, they won't play or pay, too much of a gap in power between f2p and cs, they won't play or pay. 

Originally posted by paulytheb

I can't find the rest of the P.T Barnum quote, but when he made that famous quote he was talking about the sideshows in the circus that featured things like the strong man and the bearded lady and other oddities and outright falsehoods like a one horned goat as a unicorn.

And he said something along the lines of he would rather get a penny from everyone who came to walk the grounds then the nickel from the people who bought tickets for the big top. Thus the sucker quote. I didn't mean it to come off as derogative.

Barnum never said that phrase, he was only remembered for saying it

P. T. Barnum Never Did Say "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute"

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

Originally posted by sportsfan

WIth Blizzard publishing its subscription numbers today it is kind of odd that subscriptions these days have become an odd word in MMORPG land.

WOW - EVE and a few left overs in RIFT (8US servers coming from 55 or so) and that's about it I guess.

Even http://mmodata.net/ is no longer updating its pages anymore in the last year. What's the use since every one left the boxing ring of subscriptions.

EA didn't mention anything  about them and as SW TOR turned into a free to play but pay for many things game, it is interesting to see how the last of the Mohicans will stand in the future.

Nevertheless a subscription based game is a gold mine, while the complete absence of hard $$ signs on cash shops says it all. We only see things like suspicious % growth in these F2P games and it is quite clear after seeing Zynga games hit the bottom of the barrel with its ... 80 million players and 800% stock crash, the on line industry is licking its wounds.

MMORPG's a dying breed...

 

good thing people with fucked up theories are no dieing breed, as you have just proven

Originally posted by sportsfan

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Aeonblades
I could post something inflammatory about MMORPG socialism and the new world order, but I'm just too tired to stir things up today. Suffice to say a lot of people hate F2P, and a lot of other people hate Subs.

And the same time, more and more games are F2P, and F2P has grown its market share.

 

But not market share in hard $$$ signs. For those doubting: look at the figures of Zynga. Zillions of players, around 80.000.000 million for Farmville alone, dozens of games  ... and they need to resort to poker gambling sites to ensure income.

 

 

 

 

Yes, it is.

http://www.newzoo.com/insights/the-global-mmo-market-sizing-and-seizing-opportunities-2/

"in 2009 the percentage of F2P MMO game spending was about 39% in the US, it is now 50%" .. note that it is spending. And this does not include farmville, which is classified as social games.

Originally posted by paulytheb

Oh and I totally get the whale thing. No argument, i just don't think the whales alone can sustain the games.

City of Heroes allegedly had some very large whales.

Apparently the whales are sustaining the games now. And of course i agree that we cannot project how long that will be so. But many F2P games are making more money than they were with P2P. That itself is a fact.

I think MMOS that have to covert to it are really the ones that are hard pressed to survive. If TOR does'nt produce revenue we all know it will coast in limbo, so in truth they really needed F2P to survive. without it they would have run the risk of just shutting down or, coasting along in limbo land. I'm not sure i'm sold on the idea F2P means poor quality. indeed with the economy in the tank for the middle class, I can see it as a viable way to be able to find a game you can play.

I know that if people can aslo afford cable internet and a 100 month smart phone and turn around and bitch about subscriptions, I really just want to facepalm when I hear them complain.

Not sure yet, but hey I will read the opinons here see if it can help solidfy my own.

Interesting subject for sure.

Originally posted by NC-John

 

I know that if people can aslo afford cable internet and a 100 month smart phone and turn around and bitch about subscriptions, I really just want to facepalm when I hear them complain.

It is seldom about affordability. It is about competition and comparison. I will (and have) drop $900 for a meal at the French Laundry because that is the ONLY place in CA for a michilin 3-star Thomas Kelly meal.

However, why should i pay a sub when a F2P game gives me roughly the same amount of fun? It is not like any sub game is providing me with a unique experience i cannot get anywhere else.

I think that is the key .. competition. If you want someone to pay a sub, there better be no F2P alternative. And games, while they are not truly identical, many can provide similar level of fun.

Originally posted by Nadia

Originally posted by paulytheb

I can't find the rest of the P.T Barnum quote, but when he made that famous quote he was talking about the sideshows in the circus that featured things like the strong man and the bearded lady and other oddities and outright falsehoods like a one horned goat as a unicorn.

And he said something along the lines of he would rather get a penny from everyone who came to walk the grounds then the nickel from the people who bought tickets for the big top. Thus the sucker quote. I didn't mean it to come off as derogative.

Barnum never said that phrase, he was only remembered for saying it

 

P. T. Barnum Never Did Say "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute"

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

 

I knew someone was going to bring that up, but I didn't feel like explaining it all. Thanks for posting the link.

Edit - I guess  I should have read a little further in that link, because that story is not 100% accurate either. Actually about a half dozen people have been attributed to that quote, but Barnum never denied saying it either.

There is no way to tell anymore who really said it.

Those prices in the story you linked seem a little inflated for the time period as well.

Originally posted by Alberel

The subscription model has taken a hit lately due to so many sub-based MMOs doing badly as a result of not having a specific target audience. Essentially they get greedy and try to appeal to everyone and ultimately satisfy no one. Rather than rethink their strategy and develop better games for specific player types though they instead just change the business model but continue to develop the same shallow games...

This whole B2P and F2P craze will die out after a while. Players will eventually realise that subscriptions were better as they guaranteed the devs had to work to keep you paying. Look at GW2, there has been very little post-launch content added to that game and the majority of it has been very poorly received... B2P means the devs can get lazy as they already have everyone's money.

F2P is still, in most cases, just a scam. The more games go this route the more people will finally work it out for themselves.

If sub games die out then that'll leave the market wide open for someone else to release a new sub-based game for the players unsatisfied with B2P and F2P. In other words, subs won't die out because a lot of MMO players would rather pay for quality.

I agree with you. For sub. games the devs have an incentive to develop the game as they rely on people staying subbed. For B2P games, they already have your money so the incentive for them to continue to develop the game is much less.

Finally F2P games are just bad for most gamers as devs will spend most of their time adding things which are either directly or indirectly sold from the cash shops and actually improving the game will be a secondary objective.

In the end I think that sub. games will find its nische of players who are willing to pay a montly fee for quality content which is not tied to a cash shop. But for that to happen they need to stop releasing ThemePark garbage and go back to creating virtual worlds and evolve it. Only people doing that are indy devs and unfourtunately they dont have the resources for creating a quality MMO but hopefully there will be a big company finally creating a proper sandbox MMO and not more ThemePark, cash shop, pay to win tripe.