Lotro released April 24, 2007. It went F2P Sept 2010. Your right about Lotro, I read that on wiki wrong.
TSW - I said it can't really be compared.
CoH - that is what I stated, one expansion before, one expansion after with 2-3 updates per year. That did not change. IT released Feb 2004, went f2p sep 2011. Had 1 major expansion before that, 20 updates (20 in 7 years 2.8/year). 1 major expansion and 3 updates after and closed Nov 30, 2012 (so 3 updates in that one years - an even higher rate than the p2p).
So far the only thing that you presented that disagrees with me is LOTRO. And then there are 2 expansions before, and 2 after so once again the updates are at the same rate.
I don't see any difference in quality of p2p or f2p games. I don't see any difference in quality of games after f2p.
EQ2 - one a year before. It went f2p last year, there's been one expansion. So still one plus a year.
Released Nov 4, 2004. F2P July 2010 (admittedly only on a seperate server, dec 6 2011 all severs). 10 expansions in 6 years before f2p (1.6/year), 3 expansions in 2 years after f2p (1.5/year - no significant difference).
If we compare all severs - 2 expansions in 1.5 years (1.3/year again not significant)
STO - released feb 2, 2010. f2p on jan 17, 2012. Has had 7 updates so far. 4 before f2p (4 in 2 years). 1 at f2p. 2 since f2p (2 in just over 1 year)
The only thing you countered was lotro, and I admit the information I had was wrong. However it shows the same about of updates. And many people feel that the Riders of Rohan Expansion was the best one yet.
So while you say much was wrong, the only thing you countered was Lotro, and I was wrong about the dates but not the rate of updates.
Sure, they have delivered the same amount of content as before more/less..
But since most of these games also has the ability to have a subscription plan and these expansions most likely are sold in a one time price this discussion is rather pointless and doesn't really offer proof of anything more than that the game is still active and the company that gave out the game still produces content for it..One thing is certain however they now have more players that may be interessted in buying the expansion, and that is always a good thing
All my friends that tried SWTOR FTP lasted as FTP a couple of days before they switched over to subscription..
All my friends that played DDO did the same thing..I did it instantly.
A subscription plan on any FTP MMO is convinient to say the least..and removes alot of frustration of inventory full etc etc.
Lotro released April 24, 2007. It went F2P Sept 2010. Your right about Lotro, I read that on wiki wrong.
TSW - I said it can't really be compared.
CoH - that is what I stated, one expansion before, one expansion after with 2-3 updates per year. That did not change. IT released Feb 2004, went f2p sep 2011. Had 1 major expansion before that, 20 updates (20 in 7 years 2.8/year). 1 major expansion and 3 updates after and closed Nov 30, 2012 (so 3 updates in that one years - an even higher rate than the p2p).
So far the only thing that you presented that disagrees with me is LOTRO. And then there are 2 expansions before, and 2 after so once again the updates are at the same rate.
I don't see any difference in quality of p2p or f2p games. I don't see any difference in quality of games after f2p.
EQ2 - one a year before. It went f2p last year, there's been one expansion. So still one plus a year.
Released Nov 4, 2004. F2P July 2010 (admittedly only on a seperate server, dec 6 2011 all severs). 10 expansions in 6 years before f2p (1.6/year), 3 expansions in 2 years after f2p (1.5/year - no significant difference).
If we compare all severs - 2 expansions in 1.5 years (1.3/year again not significant)
STO - released feb 2, 2010. f2p on jan 17, 2012. Has had 7 updates so far. 4 before f2p (4 in 2 years). 1 at f2p. 2 since f2p (2 in just over 1 year)
The only thing you countered was lotro, and I admit the information I had was wrong. However it shows the same about of updates. And many people feel that the Riders of Rohan Expansion was the best one yet.
So while you say much was wrong, the only thing you countered was Lotro, and I was wrong about the dates but not the rate of updates.
Sure, they have delivered the same amount of content as before more/less..
But since most of these games also has the ability to have a subscription plan and these expansions most likely are sold in a one time price this discussion is rather pointless and doesn't really offer proof of anything more than that the game is still active and the company that gave out the game still produces content for it..One thing is certain however they now have more players that may be interessted in buying the expansion, and that is always a good thing
All my friends that tried SWTOR FTP lasted as FTP a couple of days before they switched over to subscription..
All my friends that played DDO did the same thing..I did it instantly.
A subscription plan on any FTP MMO is convinient to say the least..and removes alot of frustration of inventory full etc etc.
Yes thats true and in the original quote he did specifically mention freemium as well.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Possibly agree with the first, disagree with the 2nd. IMO there is more incentive in a f2p game to make the game fun. The devs will not get any money at all from the player if it isn't fun. In a p2p they have your months sub and possible box before you even know if you like it. P2p does need to be fun, but the intiial push is all hype. F2p has to be fun from the very start.
Not only that, F2P devs have to earn your time first, then you money. And they have do it every day.
Possibly agree with the first, disagree with the 2nd. IMO there is more incentive in a f2p game to make the game fun. The devs will not get any money at all from the player if it isn't fun. In a p2p they have your months sub and possible box before you even know if you like it. P2p does need to be fun, but the intiial push is all hype. F2p has to be fun from the very start.
Not only that, F2P devs have to earn your time first, then you money. And they have do it every day.
Considering figures show that a very small percentage pay the full bill for F2P this sentiment doesn't seem to ring true. The majority of players will never pay and so this creates a rather tricky predicament for those in accounts receivable if not for the over charging of those that will pay. Better hope they stick around.
Possibly agree with the first, disagree with the 2nd. IMO there is more incentive in a f2p game to make the game fun. The devs will not get any money at all from the player if it isn't fun. In a p2p they have your months sub and possible box before you even know if you like it. P2p does need to be fun, but the intiial push is all hype. F2p has to be fun from the very start.
Not only that, F2P devs have to earn your time first, then you money. And they have do it every day.
Considering figures show that a very small percentage pay the full bill for F2P this sentiment doesn't seem to ring true. The majority of players will never pay and so this creates a rather tricky predicament for those in accounts receivable if not for the over charging of those that will pay. Better hope they stick around.
How does it not ring true, it seems completely accurate to me.
There is no upfront cost, therefore a player has to actually be in the game playing. They have to have some amount in the game before deciding to use the cash shop.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by Aelious Originally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by VengeSunsoar
Possibly agree with the first, disagree with the 2nd. IMO there is more incentive in a f2p game to make the game fun. The devs will not get any money at all from the player if it isn't fun. In a p2p they have your months sub and possible box before you even know if you like it. P2p does need to be fun, but the intiial push is all hype. F2p has to be fun from the very start.Not only that, F2P devs have to earn your time first, then you money. And they have do it every day.Considering figures show that a very small percentage pay the full bill for F2P this sentiment doesn't seem to ring true. The majority of players will never pay and so this creates a rather tricky predicament for those in accounts receivable if not for the over charging of those that will pay. Better hope they stick around.
A little more than half the people who play are paying. The majority are paying money, not the other way around.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Lotro released April 24, 2007. It went F2P Sept 2010. Your right about Lotro, I read that on wiki wrong.
TSW - I said it can't really be compared.
CoH - that is what I stated, one expansion before, one expansion after with 2-3 updates per year. That did not change. IT released Feb 2004, went f2p sep 2011. Had 1 major expansion before that, 20 updates (20 in 7 years 2.8/year). 1 major expansion and 3 updates after and closed Nov 30, 2012 (so 3 updates in that one years - an even higher rate than the p2p).
So far the only thing that you presented that disagrees with me is LOTRO. And then there are 2 expansions before, and 2 after so once again the updates are at the same rate.
I don't see any difference in quality of p2p or f2p games. I don't see any difference in quality of games after f2p.
EQ2 - one a year before. It went f2p last year, there's been one expansion. So still one plus a year.
Released Nov 4, 2004. F2P July 2010 (admittedly only on a seperate server, dec 6 2011 all severs). 10 expansions in 6 years before f2p (1.6/year), 3 expansions in 2 years after f2p (1.5/year - no significant difference).
If we compare all severs - 2 expansions in 1.5 years (1.3/year again not significant)
STO - released feb 2, 2010. f2p on jan 17, 2012. Has had 7 updates so far. 4 before f2p (4 in 2 years). 1 at f2p. 2 since f2p (2 in just over 1 year)
The only thing you countered was lotro, and I admit the information I had was wrong. However it shows the same about of updates. And many people feel that the Riders of Rohan Expansion was the best one yet.
So while you say much was wrong, the only thing you countered was Lotro, and I was wrong about the dates but not the rate of updates.
My apologies if I'm missing something but aren't all of these expansions, including the LoTRO ones but minus STO, paid box expansions? It would seem hard to make the assertion that F2P doesn't lessen content updates if they aren't free. Also, I see lots of news about "updates" for free titles that do not seem more than promotion inducing news articles this site or Massively.
Possibly agree with the first, disagree with the 2nd. IMO there is more incentive in a f2p game to make the game fun. The devs will not get any money at all from the player if it isn't fun. In a p2p they have your months sub and possible box before you even know if you like it. P2p does need to be fun, but the intiial push is all hype. F2p has to be fun from the very start.
Not only that, F2P devs have to earn your time first, then you money. And they have do it every day.
Considering figures show that a very small percentage pay the full bill for F2P this sentiment doesn't seem to ring true. The majority of players will never pay and so this creates a rather tricky predicament for those in accounts receivable if not for the over charging of those that will pay. Better hope they stick around.
A little more than half the people who play are paying. The majority are paying money, not the other way around.
Wasn't there an article about how 30% of the players were paying 80% of the bill? I lose track of them.
Possibly agree with the first, disagree with the 2nd. IMO there is more incentive in a f2p game to make the game fun. The devs will not get any money at all from the player if it isn't fun. In a p2p they have your months sub and possible box before you even know if you like it. P2p does need to be fun, but the intiial push is all hype. F2p has to be fun from the very start.
Not only that, F2P devs have to earn your time first, then you money. And they have do it every day.
Considering figures show that a very small percentage pay the full bill for F2P this sentiment doesn't seem to ring true. The majority of players will never pay and so this creates a rather tricky predicament for those in accounts receivable if not for the over charging of those that will pay. Better hope they stick around.
How does it not ring true, it seems completely accurate to me.
There is no upfront cost, therefore a player has to actually be in the game playing. They have to have some amount in the game before deciding to use the cash shop.
That does make perfect sense but I'd seen some article about how most do not pay. If this were true it wouldn't matter what seemed to make sense but rather the actual outcome. I truly hope this isn't the case because if it is trouble will be coming as newer titles are released.
Edit: the article was on online and Mobile games, not MMOs. So we're not there yet.
Lotro released April 24, 2007. It went F2P Sept 2010. Your right about Lotro, I read that on wiki wrong.
TSW - I said it can't really be compared.
CoH - that is what I stated, one expansion before, one expansion after with 2-3 updates per year. That did not change. IT released Feb 2004, went f2p sep 2011. Had 1 major expansion before that, 20 updates (20 in 7 years 2.8/year). 1 major expansion and 3 updates after and closed Nov 30, 2012 (so 3 updates in that one years - an even higher rate than the p2p).
So far the only thing that you presented that disagrees with me is LOTRO. And then there are 2 expansions before, and 2 after so once again the updates are at the same rate.
I don't see any difference in quality of p2p or f2p games. I don't see any difference in quality of games after f2p.
EQ2 - one a year before. It went f2p last year, there's been one expansion. So still one plus a year.
Released Nov 4, 2004. F2P July 2010 (admittedly only on a seperate server, dec 6 2011 all severs). 10 expansions in 6 years before f2p (1.6/year), 3 expansions in 2 years after f2p (1.5/year - no significant difference).
If we compare all severs - 2 expansions in 1.5 years (1.3/year again not significant)
STO - released feb 2, 2010. f2p on jan 17, 2012. Has had 7 updates so far. 4 before f2p (4 in 2 years). 1 at f2p. 2 since f2p (2 in just over 1 year)
The only thing you countered was lotro, and I admit the information I had was wrong. However it shows the same about of updates. And many people feel that the Riders of Rohan Expansion was the best one yet.
So while you say much was wrong, the only thing you countered was Lotro, and I was wrong about the dates but not the rate of updates.
My apologies if I'm missing something but aren't all of these expansions, including the LoTRO ones but minus STO, paid box expansions? It would seem hard to make the assertion that F2P doesn't lessen content updates if they aren't free. Also, I see lots of news about "updates" for free titles that do not seem more than promotion inducing news articles this site or Massively.
Yes. The original quote was stating that f2p and freemium had less content updates. I disputed that by showing that the update frequency was the same before and after the freemium conversion.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Possibly agree with the first, disagree with the 2nd. IMO there is more incentive in a f2p game to make the game fun. The devs will not get any money at all from the player if it isn't fun. In a p2p they have your months sub and possible box before you even know if you like it. P2p does need to be fun, but the intiial push is all hype. F2p has to be fun from the very start.
Not only that, F2P devs have to earn your time first, then you money. And they have do it every day.
Considering figures show that a very small percentage pay the full bill for F2P this sentiment doesn't seem to ring true. The majority of players will never pay and so this creates a rather tricky predicament for those in accounts receivable if not for the over charging of those that will pay. Better hope they stick around.
A little more than half the people who play are paying. The majority are paying money, not the other way around.
Wasn't there an article about how 30% of the players were paying 80% of the bill? I lose track of them.
In this very thread are links to recent research with a little over half the people paying.
** ** **
That doesn't mean that everyone is paying the same amount. A small number of players very well could be paying a large percent of the total game revenues collected. The only clear statements I've seen on this was Allod's model that depended on 'whales' to pay for the game. I haven't seen actual research on the industry in general, only speculation.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Several of the games being cited as great examples of f2p were not developed as f2p and probably would not exist, at least with the polish they have if they were not originally designed with p2p as the main revenue model. Swtor, lotro ,sto etc. I've not found Neverwinter very good. A decent game but nothing like AAA. Gw2 is probably the only f2p game that I've tried that is close to games developed as AAA P2P. I could never see a game with the depth and complexity of eve being developed as f2p
Originally posted by scritty Several of the games being cited as great examples of f2p were not developed as f2p and probably would not exist, at least with the polish they have if they were not originally designed with p2p as the main revenue model. Swtor, lotro ,sto etc. I've not found Neverwinter very good. A decent game but nothing like AAA. Gw2 is probably the only f2p game that I've tried that is close to games developed as AAA P2P. I could never see a game with the depth and complexity of eve being developed as f2p
Originally posted by scritty Several of the games being cited as great examples of f2p were not developed as f2p and probably would not exist, at least with the polish they have if they were not originally designed with p2p as the main revenue model.
Those games that were developed with P2P in mind would no longer exist without the F2P conversion. Large budget games are now in development (MMO development can often take 5 years or more) with F2P/hybrid models in mind instead of P2P exactly because the market has changed so much. In the past, large budget western games never thought about a different payment model (exluding maybe GW1) because P2P was the norm. Now that P2P-only is no longer the norm and, like you said, almost all of the P2P games have gone F2P, P2P-only is a much more difficult model to sell than it once was.
Possibly agree with the first, disagree with the 2nd. IMO there is more incentive in a f2p game to make the game fun. The devs will not get any money at all from the player if it isn't fun. In a p2p they have your months sub and possible box before you even know if you like it. P2p does need to be fun, but the intiial push is all hype. F2p has to be fun from the very start.
Not only that, F2P devs have to earn your time first, then you money. And they have do it every day.
So you are paying something, your time costs money as it were.
Possibly agree with the first, disagree with the 2nd. IMO there is more incentive in a f2p game to make the game fun. The devs will not get any money at all from the player if it isn't fun. In a p2p they have your months sub and possible box before you even know if you like it. P2p does need to be fun, but the intiial push is all hype. F2p has to be fun from the very start.
Not only that, F2P devs have to earn your time first, then you money. And they have do it every day.
Considering figures show that a very small percentage pay the full bill for F2P this sentiment doesn't seem to ring true. The majority of players will never pay and so this creates a rather tricky predicament for those in accounts receivable if not for the over charging of those that will pay. Better hope they stick around.
A little more than half the people who play are paying. The majority are paying money, not the other way around.
Wasn't there an article about how 30% of the players were paying 80% of the bill? I lose track of them.
In this very thread are links to recent research with a little over half the people paying.
** ** **
That doesn't mean that everyone is paying the same amount. A small number of players very well could be paying a large percent of the total game revenues collected. The only clear statements I've seen on this was Allod's model that depended on 'whales' to pay for the game. I haven't seen actual research on the industry in general, only speculation.
This is my concern, we have as many of these studies as we get about proof that a new diet is amazing and then studies saying the new diet does not work or is dangerous. How much the revenue models are making, what percentage of F2P players pay and so on, the figures vary wildly. Take them all with a pinch of salt. Not too big a pinch of course as salt is not good for you in excessive quantities.
Lotro released April 24, 2007. It went F2P Sept 2010. Your right about Lotro, I read that on wiki wrong.
TSW - I said it can't really be compared.
CoH - that is what I stated, one expansion before, one expansion after with 2-3 updates per year. That did not change. IT released Feb 2004, went f2p sep 2011. Had 1 major expansion before that, 20 updates (20 in 7 years 2.8/year). 1 major expansion and 3 updates after and closed Nov 30, 2012 (so 3 updates in that one years - an even higher rate than the p2p).
So far the only thing that you presented that disagrees with me is LOTRO. And then there are 2 expansions before, and 2 after so once again the updates are at the same rate.
I don't see any difference in quality of p2p or f2p games. I don't see any difference in quality of games after f2p.
EQ2 - one a year before. It went f2p last year, there's been one expansion. So still one plus a year.
Released Nov 4, 2004. F2P July 2010 (admittedly only on a seperate server, dec 6 2011 all severs). 10 expansions in 6 years before f2p (1.6/year), 3 expansions in 2 years after f2p (1.5/year - no significant difference).
If we compare all severs - 2 expansions in 1.5 years (1.3/year again not significant)
STO - released feb 2, 2010. f2p on jan 17, 2012. Has had 7 updates so far. 4 before f2p (4 in 2 years). 1 at f2p. 2 since f2p (2 in just over 1 year)
The only thing you countered was lotro, and I admit the information I had was wrong. However it shows the same about of updates. And many people feel that the Riders of Rohan Expansion was the best one yet.
So while you say much was wrong, the only thing you countered was Lotro, and I was wrong about the dates but not the rate of updates.
My apologies if I'm missing something but aren't all of these expansions, including the LoTRO ones but minus STO, paid box expansions? It would seem hard to make the assertion that F2P doesn't lessen content updates if they aren't free. Also, I see lots of news about "updates" for free titles that do not seem more than promotion inducing news articles this site or Massively.
Yes. The original quote was stating that f2p and freemium had less content updates. I disputed that by showing that the update frequency was the same before and after the freemium conversion.
'Freemium', who makes up this rubbish? Can someone explain how fremimium is different from F2P anyway? Here is the Oxford dictionary defiantion:
"A business model, especially on the Internet, whereby basic services are provided free of charge while more advanced features must be paid for."
That sounds like F2P to me?
Ok we agree on Lotro then. I have only half completed RoR, so far I do not agree its as good as the first two, but that's a half baked answer.
CoH was launched in 2004 and became F2P in September 2011. "Going Rogue" was released in 2010. What is the name of the expansion you think was launched after CoH went F2P?
'Freemium', who makes up this rubbish? Can someone explain how fremimium is different from F2P anyway? Here is the Oxford dictionary defiantion:
"A business model, especially on the Internet, whereby basic services are provided free of charge while more advanced features must be paid for."
That sounds like F2P to me?
Freemium is a term that people use to describe games like SWTOR, EQ2 and LotRO. It means that you can play the game for free and buy things a la carte or you can pay a subscription to get everything (or almost everything) in the game.
'Freemium', who makes up this rubbish? Can someone explain how fremimium is different from F2P anyway? Here is the Oxford dictionary defiantion:
"A business model, especially on the Internet, whereby basic services are provided free of charge while more advanced features must be paid for."
That sounds like F2P to me?
Freemium is a term that people use to describe games like SWTOR, EQ2 and LotRO. It means that you can play the game for free and buy things a la carte or you can pay a subscription to get everything (or almost everything) in the game.
It is the hybrid model then, Ok thanks for confirming that.
'Freemium', who makes up this rubbish? Can someone explain how fremimium is different from F2P anyway? Here is the Oxford dictionary defiantion:
"A business model, especially on the Internet, whereby basic services are provided free of charge while more advanced features must be paid for."
That sounds like F2P to me?
Freemium is a term that people use to describe games like SWTOR, EQ2 and LotRO. It means that you can play the game for free and buy things a la carte or you can pay a subscription to get everything (or almost everything) in the game.
It is the hybrid model then, Ok thanks for confirming that.
Pay 2 win more likely. Freemium is tolerated by most people because they do not realise that a F2P game allows basic access to all features and content as a bare minimum and anything different than that is P2W regardless if you can buy power via microtransactions or not. How does that make sense you ask? Simple: In a game which is blatantly P2W but which you like you're forced to pay past a certain point to remain competitive while in a game which is a freemium game you have to pay past a certain point to access the game and in a traditional themepark style game that usually means having access to more powerful items than players who play for free.
True F2P games do not offer any power advantage to their paying customers, they offer a choice of paying with more time to get to endgame/where the player wants or paying with cash to speed it up somewhat. Locking content behind paywalls and even worse: having subscriber only servers is P2W.
Addendum: A hybrid model = a F2P model with both microtransactions and a sub, these are usually themepark games with a good degree of grind built into them while microtransaction only F2P is the vanilla F2P model (ex of both types respectively: World of Tanks and LoL).
Originally posted by Scot Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by AeliousOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by AeliousOriginally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by VengeSunsoar
Possibly agree with the first, disagree with the 2nd. IMO there is more incentive in a f2p game to make the game fun. The devs will not get any money at all from the player if it isn't fun. In a p2p they have your months sub and possible box before you even know if you like it. P2p does need to be fun, but the intiial push is all hype. F2p has to be fun from the very start.Not only that, F2P devs have to earn your time first, then you money. And they have do it every day.Considering figures show that a very small percentage pay the full bill for F2P this sentiment doesn't seem to ring true. The majority of players will never pay and so this creates a rather tricky predicament for those in accounts receivable if not for the over charging of those that will pay. Better hope they stick around.A little more than half the people who play are paying. The majority are paying money, not the other way around.Wasn't there an article about how 30% of the players were paying 80% of the bill? I lose track of them. In this very thread are links to recent research with a little over half the people paying. ** ** ** That doesn't mean that everyone is paying the same amount. A small number of players very well could be paying a large percent of the total game revenues collected. The only clear statements I've seen on this was Allod's model that depended on 'whales' to pay for the game. I haven't seen actual research on the industry in general, only speculation. This is my concern, we have as many of these studies as we get about proof that a new diet is amazing and then studies saying the new diet does not work or is dangerous. How much the revenue models are making, what percentage of F2P players pay and so on, the figures vary wildly. Take them all with a pinch of salt. Not too big a pinch of course as salt is not good for you in excessive quantities.
Calm down there. This isn't the same thing as speculating on the complex chemical interactions in the body. When data is available, it will clearly show how many people are playing and how many people are paying. The answer isn't something that requires speculation, it's in the data itself.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Low cost of entry, no paying for a game and finding out it is rubbish. Higher overall lifetime cost for a few.
Also some people have little money so that is where they spend their gaming time.
Not all games are generic, but most try to appeal to a broad spectrum of players to keep their server costs paid for and future expansions and add ons + $ for employees.
Possibly agree with the first, disagree with the 2nd. IMO there is more incentive in a f2p game to make the game fun. The devs will not get any money at all from the player if it isn't fun. In a p2p they have your months sub and possible box before you even know if you like it. P2p does need to be fun, but the intiial push is all hype. F2p has to be fun from the very start.
Not only that, F2P devs have to earn your time first, then you money. And they have do it every day.
So you are paying something, your time costs money as it were.
Leisure time does not cost anything financial. I am wasting that time anyway.
In F2P, the free refers to monetary cost, not opportunity cost.
Possibly agree with the first, disagree with the 2nd. IMO there is more incentive in a f2p game to make the game fun. The devs will not get any money at all from the player if it isn't fun. In a p2p they have your months sub and possible box before you even know if you like it. P2p does need to be fun, but the intiial push is all hype. F2p has to be fun from the very start.
Not only that, F2P devs have to earn your time first, then you money. And they have do it every day.
Considering figures show that a very small percentage pay the full bill for F2P this sentiment doesn't seem to ring true. The majority of players will never pay and so this creates a rather tricky predicament for those in accounts receivable if not for the over charging of those that will pay. Better hope they stick around.
I didn't say they are successful in earning money from everyone.
They are trying though .. and since they don't know who may be paying, they have to try to earn it from everyone although ultimately they got it from only a few.
Comments
Sure, they have delivered the same amount of content as before more/less..
But since most of these games also has the ability to have a subscription plan and these expansions most likely are sold in a one time price this discussion is rather pointless and doesn't really offer proof of anything more than that the game is still active and the company that gave out the game still produces content for it..One thing is certain however they now have more players that may be interessted in buying the expansion, and that is always a good thing
All my friends that tried SWTOR FTP lasted as FTP a couple of days before they switched over to subscription..
All my friends that played DDO did the same thing..I did it instantly.
A subscription plan on any FTP MMO is convinient to say the least..and removes alot of frustration of inventory full etc etc.
Yes thats true and in the original quote he did specifically mention freemium as well.
Not only that, F2P devs have to earn your time first, then you money. And they have do it every day.
Considering figures show that a very small percentage pay the full bill for F2P this sentiment doesn't seem to ring true. The majority of players will never pay and so this creates a rather tricky predicament for those in accounts receivable if not for the over charging of those that will pay. Better hope they stick around.
How does it not ring true, it seems completely accurate to me.
There is no upfront cost, therefore a player has to actually be in the game playing. They have to have some amount in the game before deciding to use the cash shop.
Not only that, F2P devs have to earn your time first, then you money. And they have do it every day.
Considering figures show that a very small percentage pay the full bill for F2P this sentiment doesn't seem to ring true. The majority of players will never pay and so this creates a rather tricky predicament for those in accounts receivable if not for the over charging of those that will pay. Better hope they stick around.
A little more than half the people who play are paying. The majority are paying money, not the other way around.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
My apologies if I'm missing something but aren't all of these expansions, including the LoTRO ones but minus STO, paid box expansions? It would seem hard to make the assertion that F2P doesn't lessen content updates if they aren't free. Also, I see lots of news about "updates" for free titles that do not seem more than promotion inducing news articles this site or Massively.
Wasn't there an article about how 30% of the players were paying 80% of the bill? I lose track of them.
That does make perfect sense but I'd seen some article about how most do not pay. If this were true it wouldn't matter what seemed to make sense but rather the actual outcome. I truly hope this isn't the case because if it is trouble will be coming as newer titles are released.
Edit: the article was on online and Mobile games, not MMOs. So we're not there yet.
Yes. The original quote was stating that f2p and freemium had less content updates. I disputed that by showing that the update frequency was the same before and after the freemium conversion.
In this very thread are links to recent research with a little over half the people paying.
** ** **
That doesn't mean that everyone is paying the same amount. A small number of players very well could be paying a large percent of the total game revenues collected. The only clear statements I've seen on this was Allod's model that depended on 'whales' to pay for the game. I haven't seen actual research on the industry in general, only speculation.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Since when did GW2 go f2p?
Those games that were developed with P2P in mind would no longer exist without the F2P conversion. Large budget games are now in development (MMO development can often take 5 years or more) with F2P/hybrid models in mind instead of P2P exactly because the market has changed so much. In the past, large budget western games never thought about a different payment model (exluding maybe GW1) because P2P was the norm. Now that P2P-only is no longer the norm and, like you said, almost all of the P2P games have gone F2P, P2P-only is a much more difficult model to sell than it once was.
So you are paying something, your time costs money as it were.
This is my concern, we have as many of these studies as we get about proof that a new diet is amazing and then studies saying the new diet does not work or is dangerous. How much the revenue models are making, what percentage of F2P players pay and so on, the figures vary wildly. Take them all with a pinch of salt. Not too big a pinch of course as salt is not good for you in excessive quantities.
'Freemium', who makes up this rubbish? Can someone explain how fremimium is different from F2P anyway? Here is the Oxford dictionary defiantion:
"A business model, especially on the Internet, whereby basic services are provided free of charge while more advanced features must be paid for."
That sounds like F2P to me?
Ok we agree on Lotro then. I have only half completed RoR, so far I do not agree its as good as the first two, but that's a half baked answer.
CoH was launched in 2004 and became F2P in September 2011. "Going Rogue" was released in 2010. What is the name of the expansion you think was launched after CoH went F2P?
Freemium is a term that people use to describe games like SWTOR, EQ2 and LotRO. It means that you can play the game for free and buy things a la carte or you can pay a subscription to get everything (or almost everything) in the game.
It is the hybrid model then, Ok thanks for confirming that.
Pay 2 win more likely. Freemium is tolerated by most people because they do not realise that a F2P game allows basic access to all features and content as a bare minimum and anything different than that is P2W regardless if you can buy power via microtransactions or not. How does that make sense you ask? Simple: In a game which is blatantly P2W but which you like you're forced to pay past a certain point to remain competitive while in a game which is a freemium game you have to pay past a certain point to access the game and in a traditional themepark style game that usually means having access to more powerful items than players who play for free.
True F2P games do not offer any power advantage to their paying customers, they offer a choice of paying with more time to get to endgame/where the player wants or paying with cash to speed it up somewhat. Locking content behind paywalls and even worse: having subscriber only servers is P2W.
Addendum: A hybrid model = a F2P model with both microtransactions and a sub, these are usually themepark games with a good degree of grind built into them while microtransaction only F2P is the vanilla F2P model (ex of both types respectively: World of Tanks and LoL).
Not only that, F2P devs have to earn your time first, then you money. And they have do it every day.
Considering figures show that a very small percentage pay the full bill for F2P this sentiment doesn't seem to ring true. The majority of players will never pay and so this creates a rather tricky predicament for those in accounts receivable if not for the over charging of those that will pay. Better hope they stick around.
A little more than half the people who play are paying. The majority are paying money, not the other way around.
Wasn't there an article about how 30% of the players were paying 80% of the bill? I lose track of them.
In this very thread are links to recent research with a little over half the people paying. ** ** ** That doesn't mean that everyone is paying the same amount. A small number of players very well could be paying a large percent of the total game revenues collected. The only clear statements I've seen on this was Allod's model that depended on 'whales' to pay for the game. I haven't seen actual research on the industry in general, only speculation.
This is my concern, we have as many of these studies as we get about proof that a new diet is amazing and then studies saying the new diet does not work or is dangerous. How much the revenue models are making, what percentage of F2P players pay and so on, the figures vary wildly. Take them all with a pinch of salt. Not too big a pinch of course as salt is not good for you in excessive quantities.
Calm down there. This isn't the same thing as speculating on the complex chemical interactions in the body. When data is available, it will clearly show how many people are playing and how many people are paying. The answer isn't something that requires speculation, it's in the data itself.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Higher overall lifetime cost for a few.
Also some people have little money so that is where they spend their gaming time.
Not all games are generic, but most try to appeal to a broad spectrum of players to keep their server costs paid for and future expansions and add ons + $ for employees.
Leisure time does not cost anything financial. I am wasting that time anyway.
In F2P, the free refers to monetary cost, not opportunity cost.
I didn't say they are successful in earning money from everyone.
They are trying though .. and since they don't know who may be paying, they have to try to earn it from everyone although ultimately they got it from only a few.