Trending Games | World of Warcraft | Elder Scrolls Online | EverQuest | Guild Wars 2

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,905,762 Users Online:0
Games:757  Posts:6,296,336
Rift (Rift)
Trion Worlds | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 03/01/11)  | Pub:Trion Worlds
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

General Discussion Forum » The Pub at MMORPG.COM » If sub games make more money, why are they all going F2P?

10 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Last Search
193 posts found
  maplestone

Novice Member

Joined: 12/10/08
Posts: 3109

6/30/13 11:32:47 AM#61
Originally posted by Doogiehowser

WOW in an anamoly and more of an exception than rule. If you want to prove to people that P2P model is still viable and successful you don't use exception as a proof.

WoW has an upfront box cost, a subscription cost, a cash shop (for which they have added a minigame), a cross-promotion to give away their auction house game (D3) and links with their CCG game.  To say that it is a subsciption game is oversimplifying their revenue stream a little.


 

  Robokapp

Hard Core Member

Joined: 11/15/09
Posts: 4778

The only luck I had today was to have you as my opponent.

6/30/13 12:05:43 PM#62
Originally posted by maplestone
Originally posted by Doogiehowser

WOW in an anamoly and more of an exception than rule. If you want to prove to people that P2P model is still viable and successful you don't use exception as a proof.

WoW has an upfront box cost, a subscription cost, a cash shop (for which they have added a minigame), a cross-promotion to give away their auction house game (D3) and links with their CCG game.  To say that it is a subsciption game is oversimplifying their revenue stream a little.


 

wow-d3

eve-dust

gw1-gw2

 

hell, Tiberian sun - renegade

 

these things aren't that abnormal or that new.

 

there's a quest in GTA San ANdreas where you travel to Liberty City even...

  Superman0X

Elite Member

Joined: 3/28/06
Posts: 1080

6/30/13 12:17:09 PM#63
Originally posted by Fendel84M

I'm not against P2P and I'm not against F2P I like all models(to some extent).

But I hear it tossed around a lot, that P2P games make more money and get more updates and are hence better. If this is true, why are almost all the P2P games going F2P? Do they just hate money?

Even Rift, which was every P2P die hard's anthem. "Look at Rift! That game pumps out so much content because it is P2P!" well...they went F2P. Were they tired of making all that money?

Other than WoW, Eve is one of the only hold outs with a sub. But even that game allows players to basically buy in game currency through the plex system. (buy tons of plex and sell it all in game) so it's not a pure P2P game with everyone equal regardless of money spent.

I am just curious what the reasoning here is. The P2P games are better, because they make more money, yet they all have to go F2P. Something feels off...

 

There is some truth in the statement that P2P makes more money than F2P.... but the devil is in the details.

 

P2P makes more money, per person, than F2P.  F2P makes more money, per paying customer, than P2P. In a P2P game, every customer is paying, so the earnings per person is higher. In F2P, only a small amount of players are paying, but there is more revenue generated per paying customer.

 

The reality is that most western F2P games are in fact hybrids, that make most of their income from subscriptions. In fact, for the F2P market in the west, subscription is the single most common method of payment. This has been the case for over 10 years.  Subscription is very popular in the west, even for F2P.

 

  maplestone

Novice Member

Joined: 12/10/08
Posts: 3109

6/30/13 12:54:07 PM#64
Originally posted by Superman0X

P2P makes more money, per person, than F2P.  F2P makes more money, per paying customer, than P2P. In a P2P game, every customer is paying, so the earnings per person is higher. In F2P, only a small amount of players are paying, but there is more revenue generated per paying customer.

Does anyone know of any publically available data on this for an MMOs? 

I've seen lots of data from small mobile apps (example) where there tends to be essentially a power law distribution to spending and would expect something similar in MMOs.  But I'm wondering if the overall participation rate is higher in MMOs than in smaller games.

  rojoArcueid

Elite Member

Joined: 8/13/09
Posts: 5790

"It is double pleasure to deceive the deceiver". - Niccolo Machiavelli

6/30/13 1:06:41 PM#65
Originally posted by Fendel84M

I'm not against P2P and I'm not against F2P I like all models(to some extent).

But I hear it tossed around a lot, that P2P games make more money and get more updates and are hence better. If this is true, why are almost all the P2P games going F2P? Do they just hate money?

Even Rift, which was every P2P die hard's anthem. "Look at Rift! That game pumps out so much content because it is P2P!" well...they went F2P. Were they tired of making all that money?

Other than WoW, Eve is one of the only hold outs with a sub. But even that game allows players to basically buy in game currency through the plex system. (buy tons of plex and sell it all in game) so it's not a pure P2P game with everyone equal regardless of money spent.

I am just curious what the reasoning here is. The P2P games are better, because they make more money, yet they all have to go F2P. Something feels off...

p2p dont make more money (only WoW does...for obvious reasons, so far). They are all going f2p because they are making more money that way.

I dont support subscriptions but if the game is worth it i will pay the sub (nothing after WoW is worth 15 /mo TO ME personally). I personally prefer B2P like GW2, to me thats the best model ever. But i do have to aknowledge that both B2P and P2P are more transparent with the community and make their money in a cleaner way. Full Free to play tend to abuse their community either by pay to win or by having a group of whales keeping the servers alive (or both) then the game shuts down if the whales stop spending that much money and all that money is wasted.

 

Lately i have been very strongly inclined towards the Buy to play model from GW2, and possibly a subscription option for extra perks for the subbers.

  Robokapp

Hard Core Member

Joined: 11/15/09
Posts: 4778

The only luck I had today was to have you as my opponent.

6/30/13 1:18:59 PM#66
Originally posted by maplestone
Originally posted by Superman0X

P2P makes more money, per person, than F2P.  F2P makes more money, per paying customer, than P2P. In a P2P game, every customer is paying, so the earnings per person is higher. In F2P, only a small amount of players are paying, but there is more revenue generated per paying customer.

Does anyone know of any publically available data on this for an MMOs? 

I've seen lots of data from small mobile apps (example) where there tends to be essentially a power law distribution to spending and would expect something similar in MMOs.  But I'm wondering if the overall participation rate is higher in MMOs than in smaller games.

the 90/9/1 rule is something the devs believe in when they design their f2p model so even if its not entirely true its a drvinig force in f2p mmos.

 

the 90/9/1 rule for f2p is translating into p2p as 0/99/1. so that's where the extra money comes from.

  exwin

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/08/07
Posts: 225

6/30/13 1:27:02 PM#67

Generally speaking, free to play is where mediocre games go to slowly die.

Once the bloom of subs start to wither, FTP gives one last infusion of players that wouldn't have bought the game one last chance to play and, on the off hand chance, spend a little money on something that they wouldn't have under normal circumstances. The game already exists, why not throw open the gate to make a few extra bucks before flipping the switch off.

 

  Drakynn

Novice Member

Joined: 3/02/08
Posts: 2051

6/30/13 1:27:44 PM#68

P2P games can potentially make more money than F2P but requires a audience over a certain size to stay to do so.SInce most modern MMORPGs are just the exact same formula with one or two tweaks or innovations or made to be very niche none have been able to do so and so turn to F2P.

The industry has taken this to mean that F2P is the future instead of actually putting the work in and being imaginative enough to win said audience because trying new thing has a element of risk.

  toddze

Novice Member

Joined: 8/02/08
Posts: 2203

I am not a hater, I call it like I see it.

6/30/13 1:29:38 PM#69
Because when a p2p game goes ftp it is a last ditch effort to keep the ship afloat. These so called mmo's that launch P2P bleed subs after 90 days, they are not made to last, You have MMO's pre-wow that are still P2P EQ, XI etc. You know why they are still p2p? because they are real MMO's not an online single player rpg that loses apeal after 90 days. God I hope EQ Next delivers a real MMO game. But sadly I cant put to much faith in SOE.

Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore)
Now Playing: N/A
Worst MMO: FFXIV
Favorite MMO: FFXI

  Sovrath

Elite Member

Joined: 1/06/05
Posts: 17530

6/30/13 1:31:27 PM#70
Originally posted by Fendel84M

 

But I hear it tossed around a lot, that P2P games make more money and get more updates and are hence better. If this is true, why are almost all the P2P games going F2P? Do they just hate money?

They don't make more money they make more "consistent" money.

meaning it's easier to budget your game when you have a more solid idea as to how many subs you will have month to month. I imagine they have data that shows trends in sub gains and losses.

In a f2p you might make more money but it's all over the map. I also don't think f2p games spend more time making "better content" but making content that can be monetized.

  silvermember

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/02/12
Posts: 509

6/30/13 1:39:14 PM#71
Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by Fendel84M

 

But I hear it tossed around a lot, that P2P games make more money and get more updates and are hence better. If this is true, why are almost all the P2P games going F2P? Do they just hate money?

They don't make more money they make more "consistent" money.

meaning it's easier to budget your game when you have a more solid idea as to how many subs you will have month to month. I imagine they have data that shows trends in sub gains and losses.

In a f2p you might make more money but it's all over the map. I also don't think f2p games spend more time making "better content" but making content that can be monetized.

The same goes for p2p, they don't spend time making content. They spend time, finding ways to draw out how long it takes you to burn their content by using lockout timers, RNG and gear based encounters aka rely entirely on gear and not player ability. With the added bonus that they take your money make more content supposedly, turn around and SELL you that content. Brilliant.

  Robokapp

Hard Core Member

Joined: 11/15/09
Posts: 4778

The only luck I had today was to have you as my opponent.

6/30/13 1:43:02 PM#72
Originally posted by silvermember
Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by Fendel84M

 

But I hear it tossed around a lot, that P2P games make more money and get more updates and are hence better. If this is true, why are almost all the P2P games going F2P? Do they just hate money?

They don't make more money they make more "consistent" money.

meaning it's easier to budget your game when you have a more solid idea as to how many subs you will have month to month. I imagine they have data that shows trends in sub gains and losses.

In a f2p you might make more money but it's all over the map. I also don't think f2p games spend more time making "better content" but making content that can be monetized.

The same goes for p2p, they don't spend time making content. They spend time, finding ways to draw out how long it takes you to burn their content by using lockout timers, RNG and gear based encounters aka rely entirely on gear and not player ability. With the added bonus that they take your money make more content supposedly, turn around and SELL you that content. Brilliant.

in WoW, it's extremely rare that a world first endboss in a new tier onh eroic mode come after more than 2 weeks since release. So where are these gear encounters that skill cant overcome ?

 

because you drag your feet 6 months on full raid schedule while the top guilds clear it in 2 hours, doesn't mean gear is all that matters. quite the opposite. 

 

at one point I drew an analogy on my guild's forum in which I measured that for each hour of progression a world first guild does, my guild needs about one raidweek. Which is fine...we werent anywhere near that good. But point remains. gear is the least worry.

  Sovrath

Elite Member

Joined: 1/06/05
Posts: 17530

6/30/13 1:48:23 PM#73
Originally posted by silvermember
Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by Fendel84M

 

But I hear it tossed around a lot, that P2P games make more money and get more updates and are hence better. If this is true, why are almost all the P2P games going F2P? Do they just hate money?

They don't make more money they make more "consistent" money.

meaning it's easier to budget your game when you have a more solid idea as to how many subs you will have month to month. I imagine they have data that shows trends in sub gains and losses.

In a f2p you might make more money but it's all over the map. I also don't think f2p games spend more time making "better content" but making content that can be monetized.

The same goes for p2p, they don't spend time making content. They spend time, finding ways to draw out how long it takes you to burn their content by using lockout timers, RNG and gear based encounters aka rely entirely on gear and not player ability. With the added bonus that they take your money make more content supposedly, turn around and SELL you that content. Brilliant.

nah I don't agree.

they spend more time than should be acceptable to make content. The monthly fee is more about access to support the game and the company. They then sell you the expansion because these games do need money. The issue is that some players (and in some cases rightly so) start to wonder if those monthly fees are really worth it.

Of course they are going to put lockout timers on their encounters. f2p does this too.

And in a f2p you can conveniently pay a little extra to get those timers lowered.

 

  laokoko

Apprentice Member

Joined: 9/14/09
Posts: 1936

6/30/13 2:00:22 PM#74

If fine dinner makes more money, why are there so many fast food restaurant?

Actually no, sub game don't make more money, neither does f2p. 

The reason is there is a market for both.

 

  silvermember

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/02/12
Posts: 509

6/30/13 2:36:47 PM#75
Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by silvermember
Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by Fendel84M

 

But I hear it tossed around a lot, that P2P games make more money and get more updates and are hence better. If this is true, why are almost all the P2P games going F2P? Do they just hate money?

They don't make more money they make more "consistent" money.

meaning it's easier to budget your game when you have a more solid idea as to how many subs you will have month to month. I imagine they have data that shows trends in sub gains and losses.

In a f2p you might make more money but it's all over the map. I also don't think f2p games spend more time making "better content" but making content that can be monetized.

The same goes for p2p, they don't spend time making content. They spend time, finding ways to draw out how long it takes you to burn their content by using lockout timers, RNG and gear based encounters aka rely entirely on gear and not player ability. With the added bonus that they take your money make more content supposedly, turn around and SELL you that content. Brilliant.

nah I don't agree.

they spend more time than should be acceptable to make content. The monthly fee is more about access to support the game and the company. They then sell you the expansion because these games do need money. The issue is that some players (and in some cases rightly so) start to wonder if those monthly fees are really worth it.

Of course they are going to put lockout timers on their encounters. f2p does this too.

And in a f2p you can conveniently pay a little extra to get those timers lowered.

 

You don't agree to agree, i don't expect you to agree. 

My job is not to care what they do with the money, I pay money for content not to for something that should already come with the game for free.  Most games/products offer support with it already built into the price of that game/product. I don't mind them selling expansion IF it wasn't for the fact that they charge you a monthly fee. Other games charge you monthly and give you the content for free. Other games like guild wars 2 have shown you can have decent support (I used decent because a lot detractors will bring in Ancedontal evidence to back up their claims) with only the price of the box.

The is no issue with "some" players. The reality is that a big chunk of the market is beginning to see that p2p doesn't offer anything other than access to your character that f2p or b2p doesn't offer. You might not like cash shop in f2p games but you don't have to buy it. I personally hate it when p2p have cash shop, but I tend to just not play p2p anymore to avoid it.

F2p put in lockout timers because they simply are copying p2p mechanics. F2p games still haven't found their identity as of yet, and p2p have had a 10+ year head start. ADDED: 1 week lockout timers and people buy that flimsy excuse that it is to prevent over farming.

Anyways, there isn't any real reason to have lockout timers that are long other than to act as a time gate which goes away with great with gear treadmill.

 

  nerovipus32

Novice Member

Joined: 1/15/11
Posts: 2716

6/30/13 2:38:52 PM#76
Originally posted by Robokapp

wow isn't. eve isn't.

 

it's the bad p2p games that go f2p. not all of them.

All p2p games besides eve, ff11 and wow have gone f2p.

  Adalwulff

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/18/10
Posts: 1191

"I am not the light, or the darkness, but the twilight in between"

6/30/13 2:51:06 PM#77
Originally posted by Doogiehowser
Originally posted by Adalwulff
Originally posted by Eir_S
Originally posted by Robokapp

wow isn't. eve isn't.

 

it's the bad p2p games that go f2p. not all of them.

lol.  That's kind of a myopic view.  I don't think Rift is a bad game, even if I don't play it.  And I thought EVE sucked.  Maybe I'm just a "bad" player?  Statements like yours don't work.

Talk about myopic!!

Your whole comment is all about you!

EVE, WoW and DAOC are all great games, even after all these years they are still strong and still have a sub. So obviously you are not the voice of MMO gamers, nor do you represent the current trend.

The very existence of the games I just mentioned proves it.

To give example of game as old as DAOC doesn't make your point relevant for current times. P2P worked in past but it doesn't anymore. Also these games have paid for themselves many time over so they have no reason to go F2P.

And EVE like i mentionedvearlier sin't a pure P2P game since people can use PLEX to buy game time.

WOW in an anamoly and more of an exception than rule. If you want to prove to people that P2P model is still viable and successful you don't use exception as a proof.

 

Your missing the point

The current F2P games are no where near as successful as the games I mentioned. Game devs have to constantly churn out new games because players are not staying and most are not spending any money.

So obviously, the current trend needs to learn from the past. That's the point!

  Witten

Novice Member

Joined: 6/30/13
Posts: 56

6/30/13 2:56:27 PM#78
Why are you buying into a game made to empty your wallet?
  Robokapp

Hard Core Member

Joined: 11/15/09
Posts: 4778

The only luck I had today was to have you as my opponent.

6/30/13 2:57:02 PM#79
Originally posted by nerovipus32
Originally posted by Robokapp

wow isn't. eve isn't.

 

it's the bad p2p games that go f2p. not all of them.

All p2p games besides eve, ff11 and wow have gone f2p.

UO AC

  silvermember

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/02/12
Posts: 509

6/30/13 2:58:56 PM#80
Originally posted by Robokapp
Originally posted by silvermember
Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by Fendel84M

 

But I hear it tossed around a lot, that P2P games make more money and get more updates and are hence better. If this is true, why are almost all the P2P games going F2P? Do they just hate money?

They don't make more money they make more "consistent" money.

meaning it's easier to budget your game when you have a more solid idea as to how many subs you will have month to month. I imagine they have data that shows trends in sub gains and losses.

In a f2p you might make more money but it's all over the map. I also don't think f2p games spend more time making "better content" but making content that can be monetized.

The same goes for p2p, they don't spend time making content. They spend time, finding ways to draw out how long it takes you to burn their content by using lockout timers, RNG and gear based encounters aka rely entirely on gear and not player ability. With the added bonus that they take your money make more content supposedly, turn around and SELL you that content. Brilliant.

in WoW, it's extremely rare that a world first endboss in a new tier onh eroic mode come after more than 2 weeks since release. So where are these gear encounters that skill cant overcome ?

 

because you drag your feet 6 months on full raid schedule while the top guilds clear it in 2 hours, doesn't mean gear is all that matters. quite the opposite. 

 

at one point I drew an analogy on my guild's forum in which I measured that for each hour of progression a world first guild does, my guild needs about one raidweek. Which is fine...we werent anywhere near that good. But point remains. gear is the least worry.

Maybe I should have preface this by saying I have not played WOW, cuz I am not a noob. I don't know why it takes 6 months for some people to complete an encounter or 2 weeks. I do know that any game that has a enrage mechanic which pretty much acts like a gear check aka DPS race which indirectly acts like a gear check. 

When I mean player ability, a game shouldn't rely entirely on mastering rotations which from my understanding of WOW that is how it is (I coould be wrong, I am probably wrong). Back when I played aion, I remember walking into stormwing level 55 boss (before it got nerfed into the ground cuz nobody could beat it) a week after its release with Level 50 PvE gear (which essentially meant 1 screw up and you die) after 12 hours of dying we came up with a strategy and we won. What made the fight tough it wasn't a dps and avoid standing in fire, it punished you initially (until everybody got video of us killing it) if you did not pay attention to the environment. You had to avoid everything and timed when to attack the boss. You can make a boss tough, without resorting to gear check oops i meant enrage timer, but like I said I never played WOW so i don't know.

10 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Last Search