Originally posted by Ghavrigg I will always prefer a P2P or B2P over F2P. Still, F2P games are generally low quality overall and are F2P for a reason. No one would play them otherwise.
I don't think I've ever read something so short and so wrong at the same time.
Monetization and quality have nothing to do with each other.
And yet, still somehow works out as I said regardless. But this is just my personal opinion. I've never played an F2P game that wasn't F2P for a reason. AAA quality doesn't come free.
Originally posted by Ghavrigg I will always prefer a P2P or B2P over F2P. Still, F2P games are generally low quality overall and are F2P for a reason. No one would play them otherwise.
I don't think I've ever read something so short and so wrong at the same time.
Monetization and quality have nothing to do with each other.
Sorry, but the market and even Business101 says otherwise. No one chooses to be F2P if they can sustain a decent sized playerbase on P2P. The games that are F2P choose that monetization because they know their product can't maintain a stable population so they offer a very limited "Free" version and shamelessly cash grab. ArcheAge which you've so adamantly championed in the past is a perfect example of this. You have to really be drinking the kool-aid not to see this by now.
1. Sustaing a decent size playerbase is extremelly hard for most new games
2. F2P + cash shop has no ceiling for spending per player - business101 - never limit costumers who like to spend a lot
3. Look at MOBAs - LoL has over 30 million unique players per month - that's a pretty steady playerbase - so why don't they go P2P - oh yeah because it would kill the game - as that model would be horrible for them - so P2P is not always the answer even with a high playerbase
4. Most F2P games retain stable populations just like P2P games - ALL games "settle" into steady population state after abou 6 months post launch regardless of monetization scheme
5. I never "championed" ArcheAge - it's a game I love to play - look at AA today it has settled into it's steady state - the players who like are playing it still - those who don't have moved on - which is what happens with every game. Yes I maintain a patron status in ArcheAge via APEX purchases in game because I need the max labor regen - it costs me 400-440 gold for my 2 accounts which is chump change to me as I make 100g per day mimimum by trade pack runs. Real money spent on AA since September of last year = $0 for me (I spend my cash on Trove instead and steam/console games)
You think too much into amount over stablity. A P2P game is far more popular with developers if they can maintain it because it's a stable income for the most part. F2P and B2P makes more money over all, but the amount earned fluxulates a lot more from month to month.
For example, each month that a sub is paid for WoW, Blizzard will know how much minimum they'll make that month on the game. League of Legend on the other hand, could make a hundred million one month and ten million another because it depends far more on it's cash shop to make money. A gross estimate is a lot harder to graph and it makes it difficult for the company to put any money into future projects and updates which help maintain the game's popularity and upkeep.
So, yes, F2P makes more money but it doesn't make STABLE money. It's the difference of someone who makes $10 an hour, and someone who makes $10 for every dress sold at a dress shop. I work eight hours and make eighty dollars today, tomorrow and the day after, or I sell eight dresses and make eighty dollars today, ninety dollars tomorrow, and twenty dollars the day after.
That's why developers prefer P2P over B2P (which is a middle ground) and F2P.
Originally posted by Ghavrigg I will always prefer a P2P or B2P over F2P. Still, F2P games are generally low quality overall and are F2P for a reason. No one would play them otherwise.
I don't think I've ever read something so short and so wrong at the same time.
Monetization and quality have nothing to do with each other.
Sorry, but the market and even Business101 says otherwise. No one chooses to be F2P if they can sustain a decent sized playerbase on P2P. The games that are F2P choose that monetization because they know their product can't maintain a stable population so they offer a very limited "Free" version and shamelessly cash grab. ArcheAge which you've so adamantly championed in the past is a perfect example of this. You have to really be drinking the kool-aid not to see this by now.
1. Sustaing a decent size playerbase is extremelly hard for most new games
2. F2P + cash shop has no ceiling for spending per player - business101 - never limit costumers who like to spend a lot
3. Look at MOBAs - LoL has over 30 million unique players per month - that's a pretty steady playerbase - so why don't they go P2P - oh yeah because it would kill the game - as that model would be horrible for them - so P2P is not always the answer even with a high playerbase
4. Most F2P games retain stable populations just like P2P games - ALL games "settle" into steady population state after abou 6 months post launch regardless of monetization scheme
5. I never "championed" ArcheAge - it's a game I love to play - look at AA today it has settled into it's steady state - the players who like are playing it still - those who don't have moved on - which is what happens with every game. Yes I maintain a patron status in ArcheAge via APEX purchases in game because I need the max labor regen - it costs me 400-440 gold for my 2 accounts which is chump change to me as I make 100g per day mimimum by trade pack runs. Real money spent on AA since September of last year = $0 for me (I spend my cash on Trove instead and steam/console games)
You think too much into amount over stablity. A P2P game is far more popular with developers if they can maintain it because it's a stable income for the most part. F2P and B2P makes more money over all, but the amount earned fluxulates a lot more from month to month.
For example, each month that a sub is paid for WoW, Blizzard will know how much minimum they'll make that month on the game. League of Legend on the other hand, could make a hundred million one month and ten million another because it depends far more on it's cash shop to make money. A gross estimate is a lot harder to graph and it makes it difficult for the company to put any money into future projects and updates which help maintain the game's popularity and upkeep.
So, yes, F2P makes more money but it doesn't make STABLE money. It's the difference of someone who makes $10 an hour, and someone who makes $10 for every dress sold at a dress shop. I work eight hours and make eighty dollars today, tomorrow and the day after, or I sell eight dresses and make eighty dollars today, ninety dollars tomorrow, and twenty dollars the day after.
That's why developers prefer P2P over B2P (which is a middle ground) and F2P.
I thought the same as you before I actually talked to MMO devs about monetization at several major studios - this is where this line of reasining is incorrect
1. P2P is more predictable - but it is not more stable - because it lacks flexibility - if you lose 20% players in one month - how are you going to make up that - you won't be able to get 20% more players before the end of the month if there is only 1 week left. However if your F2P game is not making as much money as you want - you have a *sale* or you introduce several new items in the cash shop - and boom - in less then a week you can turn around your profitability - this is why cash shop is FAR superior because you CAN do something about profitability VERY fast.
What cash shops gives you is incredible flexibility to monetize the game - P2P has ZERO flexibility - once you star to lose players you can't do anything fast to turn it around - it will take months to add content and attempt to get players to sub again.
2. F2P is very stable - because of it's flexibility - major studios run daily reports and analysis on player trends and spending and they tune their cash shops accordingly - the analytics make cash shops very predictable making the issue of "uncertainty" a myth
3. The real reason why developers prefer P2P is because it's EASY - F2P + cash shops requires constant updates to item shop and an entire team of business intelligence and analytics folks to keep a pulse on player spending trends and tweak the cash shop - it's more team members, more work, a lot more headaches all around.
No, P2P is honestly more stable of an income due to that predictability. Every player that enters the game is paying a box price first and then a sub - so people who skip out before payment is due already spent the money for the box. This creates a bottom line to work with for the month. Then with subs, you know how many players you have and are paying for the sub. When a player leaves and cancels their subscription, they know they lost revenue simply by that fact. This can be factored into their revenue quickly to distibute wealth to employees and development teams.
If I lost 20% of my playerbase, I know there will be layoffs and development will have to be reworked. Current plans placed on hold in some places to put money into another.
F2P on the other hand does not have this predictability and makes it far less stable. You mention a sale. A sale is not a guarantee, it's a hope. If the majority of people who will buy the products on sale already did or you were just a little behind the times in your plan, you have to fluctulate prices frequently or deal with a loss. The problem is, you don't know how many people will be willing to buy products. Future development plans are rarely big projects - and usually only one or two at a time - because they can't afford the time or predictabilty that P2P has.
As an example, FFXIV was able to put development money and plans into the Gold Saucer, the Main Scenario, Frontlines, several dungeons, and several trials because they had a rough estimate about how many people are paying a sub. A stable amount of money that will be the same from month to month (the sub fee that is), and a loss in player base means they knew where they could place money instead.
A F2P game isn't that lucky because it relies on unpredictable results. For every 100 accounts, you can only hope that 10 of them would actually use the cash shop because most joined the game when they saw the "free" in the title. You have zero guarantees from me that I will be paying for anything in the game, and so results are a lot more wild and varied.
With the example I used before, the person would put a sale on the most popular dress but that isn't a guarantee for revenue. The other person would know the pay cut is coming.
That's why P2P is a more stable environment to be in, and one most developer prefer. F2P might make more, but it's not a guaranteed paycheck and definitely hurts the development part of the game.
Originally posted by Ghavrigg I will always prefer a P2P or B2P over F2P. Still, F2P games are generally low quality overall and are F2P for a reason. No one would play them otherwise.
I don't think I've ever read something so short and so wrong at the same time.
Monetization and quality have nothing to do with each other.
Sorry, but the market and even Business101 says otherwise. No one chooses to be F2P if they can sustain a decent sized playerbase on P2P. The games that are F2P choose that monetization because they know their product can't maintain a stable population so they offer a very limited "Free" version and shamelessly cash grab. ArcheAge which you've so adamantly championed in the past is a perfect example of this. You have to really be drinking the kool-aid not to see this by now.
1. Sustaing a decent size playerbase is extremelly hard for most new games
2. F2P + cash shop has no ceiling for spending per player - business101 - never limit costumers who like to spend a lot
3. Look at MOBAs - LoL has over 30 million unique players per month - that's a pretty steady playerbase - so why don't they go P2P - oh yeah because it would kill the game - as that model would be horrible for them - so P2P is not always the answer even with a high playerbase
4. Most F2P games retain stable populations just like P2P games - ALL games "settle" into steady population state after abou 6 months post launch regardless of monetization scheme
5. I never "championed" ArcheAge - it's a game I love to play - look at AA today it has settled into it's steady state - the players who like are playing it still - those who don't have moved on - which is what happens with every game. Yes I maintain a patron status in ArcheAge via APEX purchases in game because I need the max labor regen - it costs me 400-440 gold for my 2 accounts which is chump change to me as I make 100g per day mimimum by trade pack runs. Real money spent on AA since September of last year = $0 for me (I spend my cash on Trove instead and steam/console games)
You think too much into amount over stablity. A P2P game is far more popular with developers if they can maintain it because it's a stable income for the most part. F2P and B2P makes more money over all, but the amount earned fluxulates a lot more from month to month.
For example, each month that a sub is paid for WoW, Blizzard will know how much minimum they'll make that month on the game. League of Legend on the other hand, could make a hundred million one month and ten million another because it depends far more on it's cash shop to make money. A gross estimate is a lot harder to graph and it makes it difficult for the company to put any money into future projects and updates which help maintain the game's popularity and upkeep.
So, yes, F2P makes more money but it doesn't make STABLE money. It's the difference of someone who makes $10 an hour, and someone who makes $10 for every dress sold at a dress shop. I work eight hours and make eighty dollars today, tomorrow and the day after, or I sell eight dresses and make eighty dollars today, ninety dollars tomorrow, and twenty dollars the day after.
That's why developers prefer P2P over B2P (which is a middle ground) and F2P.
I thought the same as you before I actually talked to MMO devs about monetization at several major studios - this is where this line of reasining is incorrect
1. P2P is more predictable - but it is not more stable - because it lacks flexibility - if you lose 20% players in one month - how are you going to make up that - you won't be able to get 20% more players before the end of the month if there is only 1 week left. However if your F2P game is not making as much money as you want - you have a *sale* or you introduce several new items in the cash shop - and boom - in less then a week you can turn around your profitability - this is why cash shop is FAR superior because you CAN do something about profitability VERY fast.
What cash shops gives you is incredible flexibility to monetize the game - P2P has ZERO flexibility - once you star to lose players you can't do anything fast to turn it around - it will take months to add content and attempt to get players to sub again.
2. F2P is very stable - because of it's flexibility - major studios run daily reports and analysis on player trends and spending and they tune their cash shops accordingly - the analytics make cash shops very predictable making the issue of "uncertainty" a myth
3. The real reason why developers prefer P2P is because it's EASY - F2P + cash shops requires constant updates to item shop and an entire team of business intelligence and analytics folks to keep a pulse on player spending trends and tweak the cash shop - it's more team members, more work, a lot more headaches all around.
No, P2P is honestly more stable of an income due to that predictability. Every player that enters the game is paying a box price first and then a sub - so people who skip out before payment is due already spent the money for the box. This creates a bottom line to work with for the month. Then with subs, you know how many players you have and are paying for the sub. When a player leaves and cancels their subscription, they know they lost revenue simply by that fact. This can be factored into their revenue quickly to distibute wealth to employees and development teams.
If I lost 20% of my playerbase, I know there will be layoffs and development will have to be reworked. Current plans placed on hold in some places to put money into another.
F2P on the other hand does not have this predictability and makes it far less stable. You mention a sale. A sale is not a guarantee, it's a hope. If the majority of people who will buy the products on sale already did or you were just a little behind the times in your plan, you have to fluctulate prices frequently or deal with a loss. The problem is, you don't know how many people will be willing to buy products. Future development plans are rarely big projects - and usually only one or two at a time - because they can't afford the time or predictabilty that P2P has.
As an example, FFXIV was able to put development money and plans into the Gold Saucer, the Main Scenario, Frontlines, several dungeons, and several trials because they had a rough estimate about how many people are paying a sub. A stable amount of money that will be the same from month to month (the sub fee that is), and a loss in player base means they knew where they could place money instead.
A F2P game isn't that lucky because it relies on unpredictable results. For every 100 accounts, you can only hope that 10 of them would actually use the cash shop because most joined the game when they saw the "free" in the title. You have zero guarantees from me that I will be paying for anything in the game, and so results are a lot more wild and varied.
With the example I used before, the person would put a sale on the most popular dress but that isn't a guarantee for revenue. The other person would know the pay cut is coming.
That's why P2P is a more stable environment to be in, and one most developer prefer. F2P might make more, but it's not a guaranteed paycheck and definitely hurts the development part of the game.
I know I can't change your mind - but you are completely discounting the accuracy of analytics and BI teams - they make F2P *hightly predicatable* - that cash shop sale is NOT a "hope" - it is a calculated change based on very clear trends.
Sadly I can't share any of the data to show you how this really works - so lets just leave it at that.
You want to leave it at that and I will after I say my peace.
Creating a sale based on player trends is still a hope. Most people that play F2P games are looking at it because it's free, and a sale won't change that. There's also the fact that majority of people who would spend money usually would have even off a sale, so your betting your lot on players that were less likely to buy on the previous price. I would guess that it's probably about 40 to 50 percent that would buy something on sale.
And, of course, there's the problem that once those 40 to 50 percent of people bought the product they are no longer your customer for said product if it goes on sale again or remains on sale for an extended period. Plus once at full price, those people will never need to buy at full price. Eventually, you'll run out of products unless you update the cash shop and money to develop the cash shop is money not being invested into things outside of the cash shop like a new zone. No new in game products means either resentful fans or bored fans - both of which will quit. The people that replace them are not guaranteed to buy anything but could love the social aspect or gameplay, so you could lose a customer to someone who would stay longer but not buy anything.
This creates an unpredictabilty in the same way the weather is unpredictable. Just because you can make a rough guess on data doesn't mean you won't get more wrong than right.
F2P cash shops are essentially giving away the dress but asking to pay for each accessory. P2P is asking you to pay for the dress, then tells you that if you pay a certain amount each month you'll get ALL of those accesories. Most gamers by nature want it all, so you're more likely either frustratingly go without and quit if the cash shop is P2W or spend more money in a cash shop than you would paying a subscription.
Also, a P2P that has stabalized in the player base is more likely going to flucluate by a smaller amount than a F2P on a month to month basis. That's why F2P has sales more often and why P2P keeps a steady sub price. If they had to go on sale then there was a very obvious dip in that day or week's profits. That doesn't speak of stability in the slightest - stability is after all, a lack of change. A sale is a change, so obviously it's not stable.
Containing flux so your revenue either evens out or switches to profit isn't stability.
That's why P2P is a far more preferable money plan.
Sagewisdom, I created a trial account and tried to download it twice now, it gets half way through, then tells me it can't download the files for the patches, any idea whats going on?
Originally posted by Moirae Sagewisdom, I created a trial account and tried to download it twice now, it gets half way through, then tells me it can't download the files for the patches, any idea whats going on?
Hmm, not sure. You should trying asking the FFXIV board on here. I'll check around to see.
If you see a difference between B2P and F2P then disregard. I certainly couldn't affort a micro-transaction F2P game that bled me dry.
I don't place B2P and F2P in the same category.
...because cognitive dissonance is a beautiful thing.
Show me a B2P MMO and I'll show you a F2P MMO that managed to get people to pay for the client. The business model is exactly the same, save for the upfront fee of the B2P MMO.
Let's see, with P2P, you actually get charged twice, plus a cash shop.
The point is, subscription models never offered more quantity or better quality. That's a myth that people still believe.
WoW is a prime example, especially since Wotlk. Their content has been less with each expansion. They had ~18 months without new content from MoP to Cata release.
It seems to me like some P2P mmo's are triple dipping these days, compared to the other models. At least with f2p/b2p, i can manage my own money on my own terms.
Originally posted by Ghavrigg I will always prefer a P2P or B2P over F2P. Still, F2P games are generally low quality overall and are F2P for a reason. No one would play them otherwise.
I don't think I've ever read something so short and so wrong at the same time.
Monetization and quality have nothing to do with each other.
Sorry, but the market and even Business101 says otherwise. No one chooses to be F2P if they can sustain a decent sized playerbase on P2P. The games that are F2P choose that monetization because they know their product can't maintain a stable population so they offer a very limited "Free" version and shamelessly cash grab. ArcheAge which you've so adamantly championed in the past is a perfect example of this. You have to really be drinking the kool-aid not to see this by now.
1. Sustaing a decent size playerbase is extremelly hard for most new games
2. F2P + cash shop has no ceiling for spending per player - business101 - never limit costumers who like to spend a lot
3. Look at MOBAs - LoL has over 30 million unique players per month - that's a pretty steady playerbase - so why don't they go P2P - oh yeah because it would kill the game - as that model would be horrible for them - so P2P is not always the answer even with a high playerbase
4. Most F2P games retain stable populations just like P2P games - ALL games "settle" into steady population state after abou 6 months post launch regardless of monetization scheme
5. I never "championed" ArcheAge - it's a game I love to play - look at AA today it has settled into it's steady state - the players who like are playing it still - those who don't have moved on - which is what happens with every game. Yes I maintain a patron status in ArcheAge via APEX purchases in game because I need the max labor regen - it costs me 400-440 gold for my 2 accounts which is chump change to me as I make 100g per day mimimum by trade pack runs. Real money spent on AA since September of last year = $0 for me (I spend my cash on Trove instead and steam/console games)
You think too much into amount over stablity. A P2P game is far more popular with developers if they can maintain it because it's a stable income for the most part. F2P and B2P makes more money over all, but the amount earned fluxulates a lot more from month to month.
For example, each month that a sub is paid for WoW, Blizzard will know how much minimum they'll make that month on the game. League of Legend on the other hand, could make a hundred million one month and ten million another because it depends far more on it's cash shop to make money. A gross estimate is a lot harder to graph and it makes it difficult for the company to put any money into future projects and updates which help maintain the game's popularity and upkeep.
So, yes, F2P makes more money but it doesn't make STABLE money. It's the difference of someone who makes $10 an hour, and someone who makes $10 for every dress sold at a dress shop. I work eight hours and make eighty dollars today, tomorrow and the day after, or I sell eight dresses and make eighty dollars today, ninety dollars tomorrow, and twenty dollars the day after.
That's why developers prefer P2P over B2P (which is a middle ground) and F2P.
I thought the same as you before I actually talked to MMO devs about monetization at several major studios - this is where this line of reasining is incorrect
1. P2P is more predictable - but it is not more stable - because it lacks flexibility - if you lose 20% players in one month - how are you going to make up that - you won't be able to get 20% more players before the end of the month if there is only 1 week left. However if your F2P game is not making as much money as you want - you have a *sale* or you introduce several new items in the cash shop - and boom - in less then a week you can turn around your profitability - this is why cash shop is FAR superior because you CAN do something about profitability VERY fast.
What cash shops gives you is incredible flexibility to monetize the game - P2P has ZERO flexibility - once you star to lose players you can't do anything fast to turn it around - it will take months to add content and attempt to get players to sub again.
2. F2P is very stable - because of it's flexibility - major studios run daily reports and analysis on player trends and spending and they tune their cash shops accordingly - the analytics make cash shops very predictable making the issue of "uncertainty" a myth
3. The real reason why developers prefer P2P is because it's EASY - F2P + cash shops requires constant updates to item shop and an entire team of business intelligence and analytics folks to keep a pulse on player spending trends and tweak the cash shop - it's more team members, more work, a lot more headaches all around.
No, P2P is honestly more stable of an income due to that predictability. Every player that enters the game is paying a box price first and then a sub - so people who skip out before payment is due already spent the money for the box. This creates a bottom line to work with for the month. Then with subs, you know how many players you have and are paying for the sub. When a player leaves and cancels their subscription, they know they lost revenue simply by that fact. This can be factored into their revenue quickly to distibute wealth to employees and development teams.
If I lost 20% of my playerbase, I know there will be layoffs and development will have to be reworked. Current plans placed on hold in some places to put money into another.
F2P on the other hand does not have this predictability and makes it far less stable. You mention a sale. A sale is not a guarantee, it's a hope. If the majority of people who will buy the products on sale already did or you were just a little behind the times in your plan, you have to fluctulate prices frequently or deal with a loss. The problem is, you don't know how many people will be willing to buy products. Future development plans are rarely big projects - and usually only one or two at a time - because they can't afford the time or predictabilty that P2P has.
As an example, FFXIV was able to put development money and plans into the Gold Saucer, the Main Scenario, Frontlines, several dungeons, and several trials because they had a rough estimate about how many people are paying a sub. A stable amount of money that will be the same from month to month (the sub fee that is), and a loss in player base means they knew where they could place money instead.
A F2P game isn't that lucky because it relies on unpredictable results. For every 100 accounts, you can only hope that 10 of them would actually use the cash shop because most joined the game when they saw the "free" in the title. You have zero guarantees from me that I will be paying for anything in the game, and so results are a lot more wild and varied.
With the example I used before, the person would put a sale on the most popular dress but that isn't a guarantee for revenue. The other person would know the pay cut is coming.
That's why P2P is a more stable environment to be in, and one most developer prefer. F2P might make more, but it's not a guaranteed paycheck and definitely hurts the development part of the game.
F2P works a lot like the real world though. Walmart and McDonalds allow free access to their buildings, and they work with unpredictability just fine. Allowing free access to a service works all the time in certain markets. (terrible analogy i know)..
If you see a difference between B2P and F2P then disregard. I certainly couldn't affort a micro-transaction F2P game that bled me dry.
I don't place B2P and F2P in the same category.
...because cognitive dissonance is a beautiful thing.
Show me a B2P MMO and I'll show you a F2P MMO that managed to get people to pay for the client. The business model is exactly the same, save for the upfront fee of the B2P MMO.
Let's see, with P2P, you actually get charged twice, plus a cash shop.
The point is, subscription models never offered more quantity or better quality. That's a myth that people still believe.
WoW is a prime example, especially since Wotlk. Their content has been less with each expansion. They had ~18 months without new content from MoP to Cata release.
It seems to me like some P2P mmo's are triple dipping these days, compared to the other models. At least with f2p/b2p, i can manage my own money on my own terms.
WoW basically gets away with that by the large amount of people who have created friends and spent so much time advancing their character along with the paid investment that they feel like giving the game up would be wasting all of that away.
Yoshi-P has talked about the business model before and has at least said that as a new game and because of FFXIV 1.0, they don't have the street cred to do that, so they have to offer the large and frequent and high quality amount of content they do. So, Yoshi-P is at least trying to offer you the huge amount of quality and quantity that you want with FFXIV:ARR.
I'm not advertising, but at least he's been true to his word about it for 1.5 years. Yes, there's a buy for the box and expansion AND a cash shop, but at least the game feels like it's giving you your money's worth (plus most cash shop money has gone straight back to the game for EU servers so far).
Originally posted by Ghavrigg I will always prefer a P2P or B2P over F2P. Still, F2P games are generally low quality overall and are F2P for a reason. No one would play them otherwise.
I don't think I've ever read something so short and so wrong at the same time.
Monetization and quality have nothing to do with each other.
Sorry, but the market and even Business101 says otherwise. No one chooses to be F2P if they can sustain a decent sized playerbase on P2P. The games that are F2P choose that monetization because they know their product can't maintain a stable population so they offer a very limited "Free" version and shamelessly cash grab. ArcheAge which you've so adamantly championed in the past is a perfect example of this. You have to really be drinking the kool-aid not to see this by now.
1. Sustaing a decent size playerbase is extremelly hard for most new games
2. F2P + cash shop has no ceiling for spending per player - business101 - never limit costumers who like to spend a lot
3. Look at MOBAs - LoL has over 30 million unique players per month - that's a pretty steady playerbase - so why don't they go P2P - oh yeah because it would kill the game - as that model would be horrible for them - so P2P is not always the answer even with a high playerbase
4. Most F2P games retain stable populations just like P2P games - ALL games "settle" into steady population state after abou 6 months post launch regardless of monetization scheme
5. I never "championed" ArcheAge - it's a game I love to play - look at AA today it has settled into it's steady state - the players who like are playing it still - those who don't have moved on - which is what happens with every game. Yes I maintain a patron status in ArcheAge via APEX purchases in game because I need the max labor regen - it costs me 400-440 gold for my 2 accounts which is chump change to me as I make 100g per day mimimum by trade pack runs. Real money spent on AA since September of last year = $0 for me (I spend my cash on Trove instead and steam/console games)
You think too much into amount over stablity. A P2P game is far more popular with developers if they can maintain it because it's a stable income for the most part. F2P and B2P makes more money over all, but the amount earned fluxulates a lot more from month to month.
For example, each month that a sub is paid for WoW, Blizzard will know how much minimum they'll make that month on the game. League of Legend on the other hand, could make a hundred million one month and ten million another because it depends far more on it's cash shop to make money. A gross estimate is a lot harder to graph and it makes it difficult for the company to put any money into future projects and updates which help maintain the game's popularity and upkeep.
So, yes, F2P makes more money but it doesn't make STABLE money. It's the difference of someone who makes $10 an hour, and someone who makes $10 for every dress sold at a dress shop. I work eight hours and make eighty dollars today, tomorrow and the day after, or I sell eight dresses and make eighty dollars today, ninety dollars tomorrow, and twenty dollars the day after.
That's why developers prefer P2P over B2P (which is a middle ground) and F2P.
I thought the same as you before I actually talked to MMO devs about monetization at several major studios - this is where this line of reasining is incorrect
1. P2P is more predictable - but it is not more stable - because it lacks flexibility - if you lose 20% players in one month - how are you going to make up that - you won't be able to get 20% more players before the end of the month if there is only 1 week left. However if your F2P game is not making as much money as you want - you have a *sale* or you introduce several new items in the cash shop - and boom - in less then a week you can turn around your profitability - this is why cash shop is FAR superior because you CAN do something about profitability VERY fast.
What cash shops gives you is incredible flexibility to monetize the game - P2P has ZERO flexibility - once you star to lose players you can't do anything fast to turn it around - it will take months to add content and attempt to get players to sub again.
2. F2P is very stable - because of it's flexibility - major studios run daily reports and analysis on player trends and spending and they tune their cash shops accordingly - the analytics make cash shops very predictable making the issue of "uncertainty" a myth
3. The real reason why developers prefer P2P is because it's EASY - F2P + cash shops requires constant updates to item shop and an entire team of business intelligence and analytics folks to keep a pulse on player spending trends and tweak the cash shop - it's more team members, more work, a lot more headaches all around.
No, P2P is honestly more stable of an income due to that predictability. Every player that enters the game is paying a box price first and then a sub - so people who skip out before payment is due already spent the money for the box. This creates a bottom line to work with for the month. Then with subs, you know how many players you have and are paying for the sub. When a player leaves and cancels their subscription, they know they lost revenue simply by that fact. This can be factored into their revenue quickly to distibute wealth to employees and development teams.
If I lost 20% of my playerbase, I know there will be layoffs and development will have to be reworked. Current plans placed on hold in some places to put money into another.
F2P on the other hand does not have this predictability and makes it far less stable. You mention a sale. A sale is not a guarantee, it's a hope. If the majority of people who will buy the products on sale already did or you were just a little behind the times in your plan, you have to fluctulate prices frequently or deal with a loss. The problem is, you don't know how many people will be willing to buy products. Future development plans are rarely big projects - and usually only one or two at a time - because they can't afford the time or predictabilty that P2P has.
As an example, FFXIV was able to put development money and plans into the Gold Saucer, the Main Scenario, Frontlines, several dungeons, and several trials because they had a rough estimate about how many people are paying a sub. A stable amount of money that will be the same from month to month (the sub fee that is), and a loss in player base means they knew where they could place money instead.
A F2P game isn't that lucky because it relies on unpredictable results. For every 100 accounts, you can only hope that 10 of them would actually use the cash shop because most joined the game when they saw the "free" in the title. You have zero guarantees from me that I will be paying for anything in the game, and so results are a lot more wild and varied.
With the example I used before, the person would put a sale on the most popular dress but that isn't a guarantee for revenue. The other person would know the pay cut is coming.
That's why P2P is a more stable environment to be in, and one most developer prefer. F2P might make more, but it's not a guaranteed paycheck and definitely hurts the development part of the game.
F2P works a lot like the real world though. Walmart and McDonalds allow free access to their buildings, and they work with unpredictability just fine. Allowing free access to a service works all the time in certain markets. (terrible analogy i know)..
Walking into Walmart and McDonalds is more akin to a game having a free trial - you get in, see what it's offering you, but don't get anything until you pay for it. To go further, F2P is more like buying each item off the menu while P2P is buying a happy meal - you might save money on the first this time but if you only bought a burger and want fries, you'll be spending more while I have the burger and fries and toy and animal crackers to enjoy plus free refills on my Sprite.
Originally posted by Ghavrigg I will always prefer a P2P or B2P over F2P. Still, F2P games are generally low quality overall and are F2P for a reason. No one would play them otherwise.
I don't think I've ever read something so short and so wrong at the same time.
Monetization and quality have nothing to do with each other.
And yet, still somehow works out as I said regardless. But this is just my personal opinion. I've never played an F2P game that wasn't F2P for a reason. AAA quality doesn't come free.
There are many AAA MMO's that used to be P2P though. They went F2P, because people didn't deem their gameplay design, worthy of a subscription.
That doesn't mean that their animations, models, services, worlds, and other things, were of bad quality. It was pretty much the overall game design, such as quest-hubs, or themepark elements, etc. This is what made people stop playing the same old designs, or "wow-clones" as people like to call them.
A prime example would be Wildstar. A P2P game with AAA quality that is on life support, due to their hardcore endgame designs.
Now look at F2P, and you'll still see some quality content coming out, whether it's dungeons, art, models, character customization (Black Desert), innovative designs (Archeage in some respects), etc.
Eastern MMO's have come a long way in quality and innovation. Moonlight Blade, Black Desert, Revelations, Swordsman Online, Age of WuShu, etc. How anyone can think these are bad quality is beyond me. When i think of bad quality, i look at all the current Kickstarter projects. lol.
People are confusing restrictions with quality. F2P usually have restrictions, but that doesn't necessarily mean the MMO is of bad quality.
Originally posted by Cyrael The only three games that I feel release enough contents and updates to merit a description are Final Fantasy XIV, Eve Online, and Guild Wars 2. Everyone else, not even close.
I wouldn't say eve online has much for content, unless you call having skills magically raise while you do nothing content, if you can't tell I hate the skill system in eve. I feel its the worse part of the game and its just an excuse for them to get you to keep a sub open in a otherwise extremly shallow game.
I agree on FF14, dispite it being just the newest (and prettiest) geberic wow clone, it does update often, there is a fair amount to do. I just wish crafting (other than cooking/alch) wasn't so worthless, all the best gear is raided so.. yeah, no real point to crafted stuff once your at level cap anymore. Only exception is cooking and alchemy, you always need food for buffs and consumables to save your butt.
Never played guild wars 2, would like to though.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Originally posted by Ghavrigg I will always prefer a P2P or B2P over F2P. Still, F2P games are generally low quality overall and are F2P for a reason. No one would play them otherwise.
I don't think I've ever read something so short and so wrong at the same time.
Monetization and quality have nothing to do with each other.
And yet, still somehow works out as I said regardless. But this is just my personal opinion. I've never played an F2P game that wasn't F2P for a reason. AAA quality doesn't come free.
There are many AAA MMO's that used to be P2P though. They went F2P, because people didn't deem their gameplay design, worthy of a subscription.
That doesn't mean that their animations, models, services, worlds, and other things, were of bad quality. It was pretty much the overall game design, such as quest-hubs, or themepark elements, etc. This is what made people stop playing the same old designs, or "wow-clones" as people like to call them.
A prime example would be Wildstar. A P2P game with AAA quality that is on life support, due to their hardcore endgame designs.
Now look at F2P, and you'll still see some quality content coming out, whether it's dungeons, art, models, character customization (Black Desert), innovative designs (Archeage in some respects), etc.
Eastern MMO's have come a long way in quality and innovation. Moonlight Blade, Black Desert, Revelations, Swordsman Online, Age of WuShu, etc. How anyone can think these are bad quality is beyond me. When i think of bad quality, i look at all the current Kickstarter projects. lol.
People are confusing restrictions with quality. F2P usually have restrictions, but that doesn't necessarily mean the MMO is of bad quality.
The main problem is people are sick of all the generic wow clones, and other than indie dev teams thats all these guys shit out. Even wildstar once you get over the combat system is just yet another generic boring wow clone, its why it flopped so hard in such a short time. FF14 wouldnt have survived as a sub game if it had any other name. The Final fantasy name is pretty much the only thing keeping the game from going f2p. With FF14's gameplay if it was any other title it'd have been f2p a while ago. I got mutiple jobs at level cap in FF14 as well. Got tired of it. Its been like half a year since i've bothered with mmo's last one I played was wildstar and that lasted till halfway thru the 2nd month after release before I just lost interest due to how repetive it is.
I do however play the shit out of dungeon fighter online. I tried Elsword but I feel elsword is kinda crap compared. I'd love a new sidescrolling beatem up mmorpg like DFO. Even if its a themepark like most are, there is some satisfaction of stringing together huge combos and such, which is something the generic wow clone lacks.
All in all I hate world of warcraft, the game itself is fine, the reason I hate it is how it single handedly destroyed the genre, all that has come out really since its release has been clones of it over and over. When are devs going to learn your not going to dethrone world of warcraft? it has over 10 years of content and a huge playerbase, most mmo's are lucky to hit 1/8th of the playerbase it has. Insted of just trying to copy it do your own thing.
I' d play the shit out of a mmorpg based on dot hack gu for ps2, I loved the battle system and such, tbh games like Dot hack gu, and SAO: hollow fragment are more mmorpg like than actual mmorpgs these days.
The next issue is the fact that most mmo's these day end up bascally being a single player game with a chat room to simulate multiplayer. Its not often you need anyone else for things for alot of the game. I think thats the major downfall it has, its just being made too soloable. Its gotten to the point most people won't group unless they are forced too, which really removes the "MMO" aspect. I'd like to see a mmorpg come out where you can solo, but its like 10 times slower than grouping, to try to force people to group.
Alot of eastern mmo's tend to be bad because they are setup to be completly pay2win. Take Cosmic break, they decided to try a kickstarter to get cosmic break 2 translated, it didn't hit 50% of the 150k they were looking for, why? Because the first game Cosmic Break is known to be horrifically pay2win, like you don't even know. Its one of the worse p2w examples I have seen. There is pretty much no gear or decent robots for free, to upgrade parts you need alot of cash shop items. So the 2nd game didn't meet the kickstarter because of how badly p2w the 1st game was, and people figured it'd just be the same crap all over again.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Originally posted by Ghavrigg I will always prefer a P2P or B2P over F2P. Still, F2P games are generally low quality overall and are F2P for a reason. No one would play them otherwise.
I don't think I've ever read something so short and so wrong at the same time.
Monetization and quality have nothing to do with each other.
And yet, still somehow works out as I said regardless. But this is just my personal opinion. I've never played an F2P game that wasn't F2P for a reason. AAA quality doesn't come free.
There are many AAA MMO's that used to be P2P though. They went F2P, because people didn't deem their gameplay design, worthy of a subscription.
That doesn't mean that their animations, models, services, worlds, and other things, were of bad quality. It was pretty much the overall game design, such as quest-hubs, or themepark elements, etc. This is what made people stop playing the same old designs, or "wow-clones" as people like to call them.
A prime example would be Wildstar. A P2P game with AAA quality that is on life support, due to their hardcore endgame designs.
Now look at F2P, and you'll still see some quality content coming out, whether it's dungeons, art, models, character customization (Black Desert), innovative designs (Archeage in some respects), etc.
Eastern MMO's have come a long way in quality and innovation. Moonlight Blade, Black Desert, Revelations, Swordsman Online, Age of WuShu, etc. How anyone can think these are bad quality is beyond me. When i think of bad quality, i look at all the current Kickstarter projects. lol.
People are confusing restrictions with quality. F2P usually have restrictions, but that doesn't necessarily mean the MMO is of bad quality.
The main problem is people are sick of all the generic wow clones, and other than indie dev teams thats all these guys shit out. Even wildstar once you get over the combat system is just yet another generic boring wow clone, its why it flopped so hard in such a short time. FF14 wouldnt have survived as a sub game if it had any other name. The Final fantasy name is pretty much the only thing keeping the game from going f2p. With FF14's gameplay if it was any other title it'd have been f2p a while ago. I got mutiple jobs at level cap in FF14 as well. Got tired of it. Its been like half a year since i've bothered with mmo's last one I played was wildstar and that lasted till halfway thru the 2nd month after release before I just lost interest due to how repetive it is.
I do however play the shit out of dungeon fighter online. I tried Elsword but I feel elsword is kinda crap compared. I'd love a new sidescrolling beatem up mmorpg like DFO. Even if its a themepark like most are, there is some satisfaction of stringing together huge combos and such, which is something the generic wow clone lacks.
All in all I hate world of warcraft, the game itself is fine, the reason I hate it is how it single handedly destroyed the genre, all that has come out really since its release has been clones of it over and over. When are devs going to learn your not going to dethrone world of warcraft? it has over 10 years of content and a huge playerbase, most mmo's are lucky to hit 1/8th of the playerbase it has. Insted of just trying to copy it do your own thing.
I' d play the shit out of a mmorpg based on dot hack gu for ps2, I loved the battle system and such, tbh games like Dot hack gu, and SAO: hollow fragment are more mmorpg like than actual mmorpgs these days.
The next issue is the fact that most mmo's these day end up bascally being a single player game with a chat room to simulate multiplayer. Its not often you need anyone else for things for alot of the game. I think thats the major downfall it has, its just being made too soloable. Its gotten to the point most people won't group unless they are forced too, which really removes the "MMO" aspect. I'd like to see a mmorpg come out where you can solo, but its like 10 times slower than grouping, to try to force people to group.
What a crock of shit, FF14 has a great and robust playerbase because it is a well designed game. (dispite your personal opinion) an IP's drawing power might create strong 1st day box sales, but if the game is shit then the players will leave. Has that happened to FF14? nope.
Did it happen to ESO? yup, because it was poorly designed. . .
Originally posted by Ghavrigg I will always prefer a P2P or B2P over F2P. Still, F2P games are generally low quality overall and are F2P for a reason. No one would play them otherwise.
I don't think I've ever read something so short and so wrong at the same time.
Monetization and quality have nothing to do with each other.
Sorry, but the market and even Business101 says otherwise. No one chooses to be F2P if they can sustain a decent sized playerbase on P2P. The games that are F2P choose that monetization because they know their product can't maintain a stable population so they offer a very limited "Free" version and shamelessly cash grab. ArcheAge which you've so adamantly championed in the past is a perfect example of this. You have to really be drinking the kool-aid not to see this by now.
1. Sustaing a decent size playerbase is extremelly hard for most new games
2. F2P + cash shop has no ceiling for spending per player - business101 - never limit costumers who like to spend a lot
3. Look at MOBAs - LoL has over 30 million unique players per month - that's a pretty steady playerbase - so why don't they go P2P - oh yeah because it would kill the game - as that model would be horrible for them - so P2P is not always the answer even with a high playerbase
4. Most F2P games retain stable populations just like P2P games - ALL games "settle" into steady population state after abou 6 months post launch regardless of monetization scheme
5. I never "championed" ArcheAge - it's a game I love to play - look at AA today it has settled into it's steady state - the players who like are playing it still - those who don't have moved on - which is what happens with every game. Yes I maintain a patron status in ArcheAge via APEX purchases in game because I need the max labor regen - it costs me 400-440 gold for my 2 accounts which is chump change to me as I make 100g per day mimimum by trade pack runs. Real money spent on AA since September of last year = $0 for me (I spend my cash on Trove instead and steam/console games)
You think too much into amount over stablity. A P2P game is far more popular with developers if they can maintain it because it's a stable income for the most part. F2P and B2P makes more money over all, but the amount earned fluxulates a lot more from month to month.
For example, each month that a sub is paid for WoW, Blizzard will know how much minimum they'll make that month on the game. League of Legend on the other hand, could make a hundred million one month and ten million another because it depends far more on it's cash shop to make money. A gross estimate is a lot harder to graph and it makes it difficult for the company to put any money into future projects and updates which help maintain the game's popularity and upkeep.
So, yes, F2P makes more money but it doesn't make STABLE money. It's the difference of someone who makes $10 an hour, and someone who makes $10 for every dress sold at a dress shop. I work eight hours and make eighty dollars today, tomorrow and the day after, or I sell eight dresses and make eighty dollars today, ninety dollars tomorrow, and twenty dollars the day after.
That's why developers prefer P2P over B2P (which is a middle ground) and F2P.
I thought the same as you before I actually talked to MMO devs about monetization at several major studios - this is where this line of reasining is incorrect
1. P2P is more predictable - but it is not more stable - because it lacks flexibility - if you lose 20% players in one month - how are you going to make up that - you won't be able to get 20% more players before the end of the month if there is only 1 week left. However if your F2P game is not making as much money as you want - you have a *sale* or you introduce several new items in the cash shop - and boom - in less then a week you can turn around your profitability - this is why cash shop is FAR superior because you CAN do something about profitability VERY fast.
What cash shops gives you is incredible flexibility to monetize the game - P2P has ZERO flexibility - once you star to lose players you can't do anything fast to turn it around - it will take months to add content and attempt to get players to sub again.
2. F2P is very stable - because of it's flexibility - major studios run daily reports and analysis on player trends and spending and they tune their cash shops accordingly - the analytics make cash shops very predictable making the issue of "uncertainty" a myth
3. The real reason why developers prefer P2P is because it's EASY - F2P + cash shops requires constant updates to item shop and an entire team of business intelligence and analytics folks to keep a pulse on player spending trends and tweak the cash shop - it's more team members, more work, a lot more headaches all around.
No, P2P is honestly more stable of an income due to that predictability. Every player that enters the game is paying a box price first and then a sub - so people who skip out before payment is due already spent the money for the box. This creates a bottom line to work with for the month. Then with subs, you know how many players you have and are paying for the sub. When a player leaves and cancels their subscription, they know they lost revenue simply by that fact. This can be factored into their revenue quickly to distibute wealth to employees and development teams.
If I lost 20% of my playerbase, I know there will be layoffs and development will have to be reworked. Current plans placed on hold in some places to put money into another.
F2P on the other hand does not have this predictability and makes it far less stable. You mention a sale. A sale is not a guarantee, it's a hope. If the majority of people who will buy the products on sale already did or you were just a little behind the times in your plan, you have to fluctulate prices frequently or deal with a loss. The problem is, you don't know how many people will be willing to buy products. Future development plans are rarely big projects - and usually only one or two at a time - because they can't afford the time or predictabilty that P2P has.
As an example, FFXIV was able to put development money and plans into the Gold Saucer, the Main Scenario, Frontlines, several dungeons, and several trials because they had a rough estimate about how many people are paying a sub. A stable amount of money that will be the same from month to month (the sub fee that is), and a loss in player base means they knew where they could place money instead.
A F2P game isn't that lucky because it relies on unpredictable results. For every 100 accounts, you can only hope that 10 of them would actually use the cash shop because most joined the game when they saw the "free" in the title. You have zero guarantees from me that I will be paying for anything in the game, and so results are a lot more wild and varied.
With the example I used before, the person would put a sale on the most popular dress but that isn't a guarantee for revenue. The other person would know the pay cut is coming.
That's why P2P is a more stable environment to be in, and one most developer prefer. F2P might make more, but it's not a guaranteed paycheck and definitely hurts the development part of the game.
F2P works a lot like the real world though. Walmart and McDonalds allow free access to their buildings, and they work with unpredictability just fine. Allowing free access to a service works all the time in certain markets. (terrible analogy i know)..
Walking into Walmart and McDonalds is more akin to a game having a free trial - you get in, see what it's offering you, but don't get anything until you pay for it. To go further, F2P is more like buying each item off the menu while P2P is buying a happy meal - you might save money on the first this time but if you only bought a burger and want fries, you'll be spending more while I have the burger and fries and toy and animal crackers to enjoy plus free refills on my Sprite.
As i said, it was a bad analogy. lol.
However, P2P does not guarantee access to everything. You still have to pay for extra services, whether it's mounts/minipets in cash shops, or for other services such as server transfers. It really depends on the MMO and it's content and services.
The only real differences are the in-game restrictions between the two models, such as restricting bag & character slots, or in the extreme case of Swtor, restricting hotbars (although most of their restrictions can be unlocked via in-game by purchasing them on AH).
F2P let's you spend money on your own terms, and it only becomes more expensive if you can't control spending. Contrary to popular belief, most f2p games do not have extreme restrictions anymore, as they once were in the past, especially in the east.
P2P is more like a phone or tv subscription, you have to pay for all the unwanted crap that you don't want. Ex. Raids, or PvP.
The only three games that I feel release enough contents and updates to merit a description are Final Fantasy XIV, Eve Online, and Guild Wars 2. Everyone else, not even close.
Wtf are you babbling about, EQ2 trumps all three of those for content, expansions and updates. So saying none are even close is pure bullshit.
Honestly the only MMO that deserves a subscription only system is the one people know deserves it, the numbers speak for themselves.
Wow is the only one, because 8 million people say so. 8 million people agree and happily pay a subscription.
ESO had barely 700k subscribers.
FFXIV barely has 500k subscribers from Japan, Europe and America combined.
Numbers really do speak for themselves.
You can give all the reasons you like as to why a game deserves a sub but people just don't buy those excuses, if they did the numbers would mirror it.
FFXIV has enough subs to make the devs happy and the playerbase happy. With those undeniable facts out of the way who the hell is scorpex-x to come and say the game doesn't deserve it? You are laughable.
FFXIV keeps proving itself to be incredibly successful in the eyes of it's customers and publisher with the P2P model (which is the only thing that matters). The facts do really speak for themselves.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
What a crock of shit, FF14 has a great and robust playerbase because it is a well designed game. (dispite your personal opinion) an IP's drawing power might create strong 1st day box sales, but if the game is shit then the players will leave. Has that happened to FF14? nope.
Did it happen to ESO? yup, because it was poorly designed. . .
ESO was honestly doomed from the start, the lack of modability, and how the single player games play just cannot be recreated properly in a mmo setting.
I never said FF14 was bad persay, its is just a generic wow clone though, I don't really see anything that sets it above wow gameplay wise, graphically it slaughters wow, but thats it. I've gotten chars on mutiple servers to level cap in FF14, so I am in a decent place to judge it. Most of the time I played it, it never really did much to impress me, other than graphics its bascally wow with a new skin like alot of mmorpgs end up being these days. Also don't be too sure on that if its bad, most of the ff games after the snes haven't been all that great, yet they still sell millions, even FF13 that got a abyssmal rating sold really well. The point I am trying to make is, devs need to move away from just copying wow and try something new. Indie devs try it but a small team making a mmorpg is no easy feat. The Repopulation has promise, but the devolopment of the game is extremly slow causing loss of interest.
I would love a mmorpg that played like dot hack gu, or sao: hollow fragment gameplay wise. I am tired of these mmorpg's where all you do is go from quest hub to quest hub and thats about it, this is my problem with FF14, because thats all you do for the most part.
Its a double edged sword, indie mmo's like to be indie because they can do what they want, but because they lack the budget a big publisher could provide it takes forever for it to come out.
I honestly though FF14 1.0 was a more interesting game than what it is now. Mostly because of the fact it was more open and less going quest hub to quest hub on rails like it is now. Sadly casuals like to have their hands held at pretty much all times, if there is not some arrow telling casuals exactly where to go, they will quit cuz they are unable to think for themselves most of the time. Its even getting pretty bad in single player games.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
I thought the same as you before I actually talked to MMO devs about monetization at several major studios - this is where this line of reasining is incorrect
1. P2P is more predictable - but it is not more stable - because it lacks flexibility - if you lose 20% players in one month - how are you going to make up that - you won't be able to get 20% more players before the end of the month if there is only 1 week left. However if your F2P game is not making as much money as you want - you have a *sale* or you introduce several new items in the cash shop - and boom - in less then a week you can turn around your profitability - this is why cash shop is FAR superior because you CAN do something about profitability VERY fast.
What cash shops gives you is incredible flexibility to monetize the game - P2P has ZERO flexibility - once you star to lose players you can't do anything fast to turn it around - it will take months to add content and attempt to get players to sub again.
2. F2P is very stable - because of it's flexibility - major studios run daily reports and analysis on player trends and spending and they tune their cash shops accordingly - the analytics make cash shops very predictable making the issue of "uncertainty" a myth
3. The real reason why developers prefer P2P is because it's EASY - F2P + cash shops requires constant updates to item shop and an entire team of business intelligence and analytics folks to keep a pulse on player spending trends and tweak the cash shop - it's more team members, more work, more billing issues as you're dealing with 1000s transactions every day - need more CS folks, more platform work - a lot more headaches all around. Then there's more account and botting issues, etc... F2P is way harder and more costly to run than P2P
1. I don't think your scenario makes sense. P2P payment models are based on long-term investments. The underlying reasoning is that if you as a dev keep giving value for the sub fee over a long period of time, you will get a stable return for your investment. Because of the long-term nature of the payment model, I don't see how it is possible that a 20% dip in player subs within a month is realistic at all. P2P is inflexible, but that inflexibility also buys the devs stability on the ROI. There is certainly turbulence in player numbers within the first few months of service, but it stabilizes quite fast.
The point here is that when the customers and the devs are clear on what kind of return they are going to get over a long period of time, and the devs don't completely fuck up something about that mutual agreement, the subscription base will likewise remain stable and predictable over a long period of time. In other words when the customers know what they are getting for their money, there is simply no reason for a sudden 20% drop in the subs within a month. The trends are never that radical. Unless of course the devs completely fail to do something they've managed to succeed in before. This assumption is completely true for the major devs that have respected this mutual agreement - mainly WoW and FFXIV. Whatever big changes there are in the playerbases is a result of many months' trends, not a sudden drop within a month.
2. The problem is there is no mutual agreements to be had here - the devs allocate resources according to the short-term revenue and this increased flexibility also means uncertainty for the customers. There is also less room for long-term development pipelines because both the customers and the devs will be flexible and as such big changes in trends over a short period of time are common. F2P is very volatile in this regard, and long-term plans (that usually provide the best value in the long-term) are simply less feasible. The devs are stuck in the short-term and the players won't know whether there will be new content next month or even next year.
3. There are many more reasons to prefer one payment model over another. For example simply consider WHO is paying for the game. Is it a third party investor? Investors want their returns rather sooner than later. F2P allows for that to happen. Is it an in-house publisher looking for a stable cash cow to finance other projects and provide a stable income in volatile times? P2P allows for that to happen. It's not so much revenue in the short-term but in the long-term the investment will pay itself back. Most games are financed by investors. Investors have the final say in how fast they want their ROI. Most games go F2P.
The point is nobody cares what the devs prefer. The important thing is what the people financing the game prefer, because ultimately the devs are nothing but bitches for the people with the funds.
Last but not the least these thoughts are mirrored by Naoki Yoshida, the man at the helm of one of the more successful P2P MMOs around. Have you actually talked to him? You might get a whole different perspective on the matter than talking with MMO devs that are slaves to the investors. Of course they want to show F2P in a good light.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Originally posted by Cyrael The only three games that I feel release enough contents and updates to merit a description are Final Fantasy XIV, Eve Online, and Guild Wars 2. Everyone else, not even close.
Wtf are you babbling about, EQ2 trumps all three of those for content, expansions and updates. So saying none are even close is pure bullshit.
And yet noone playing. And it s F2P. And still noone playing. In fact, year or two back SOE said EQ2 had 600k accounts created in its LIFETIME (little less than 10 years)
Honestly the only MMO that deserves a subscription only system is the one people know deserves it, the numbers speak for themselves.
Wow is the only one, because 8 million people say so. 8 million people agree and happily pay a subscription.
ESO had barely 700k subscribers.
FFXIV barely has 500k subscribers from Japan, Europe and America combined.
Numbers really do speak for themselves.
You can give all the reasons you like as to why a game deserves a sub but people just don't buy those excuses, if they did the numbers would mirror it.
FFXIV has enough subs to make the devs happy and the playerbase happy. With those undeniable facts out of the way who the hell is scorpex-x to come and say the game doesn't deserve it? You are laughable.
FFXIV keeps proving itself to be incredibly successful in the eyes of it's customers and publisher with the P2P model (which is the only thing that matters). The facts do really speak for themselves.
They were so happy with P2P that they needed cash shop.
Originally posted by Ghavrigg I will always prefer a P2P or B2P over F2P. Still, F2P games are generally low quality overall and are F2P for a reason. No one would play them otherwise.
I don't think I've ever read something so short and so wrong at the same time.
Monetization and quality have nothing to do with each other.
And yet, still somehow works out as I said regardless. But this is just my personal opinion. I've never played an F2P game that wasn't F2P for a reason. AAA quality doesn't come free.
There are many AAA MMO's that used to be P2P though. They went F2P, because people didn't deem their gameplay design, worthy of a subscription.
They went F2P because the people in control of the money supply were not happy with the returns they were getting. You can deny it but it is all about what the people with the money want and don't want. Many people deemed these games' gameplay design worthy of subscription. However not enough people deemed the design worthy for the investor to be satisfied on the ROI. And what is enough depends entirely on the expectations of the investors:
FFXIV doesn't have more subs than any AAA P2P-gone-F2P-MMO. In fact some other MMOs have had more subs eve. Yet it keeps trucking as a P2P MMO because the financing parties are happy with it's progress. Clearly there is enough people that deem the design worthy of subscription for the company to continue providing similar service.
Most investors want a fast return on their investments, being greedy. This is why games go F2P. Not because people don't consider them "worthy". Most P2P-gone-F2P games could have found great success in being P2P. But they'd get less money in the short-term. So they switched to F2P.
It is extremely simple.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Honestly the only MMO that deserves a subscription only system is the one people know deserves it, the numbers speak for themselves.
Wow is the only one, because 8 million people say so. 8 million people agree and happily pay a subscription.
ESO had barely 700k subscribers.
FFXIV barely has 500k subscribers from Japan, Europe and America combined.
Numbers really do speak for themselves.
You can give all the reasons you like as to why a game deserves a sub but people just don't buy those excuses, if they did the numbers would mirror it.
FFXIV has enough subs to make the devs happy and the playerbase happy. With those undeniable facts out of the way who the hell is scorpex-x to come and say the game doesn't deserve it? You are laughable.
FFXIV keeps proving itself to be incredibly successful in the eyes of it's customers and publisher with the P2P model (which is the only thing that matters). The facts do really speak for themselves.
They were so happy with P2P that they needed cash shop.
Yes, facts speak for themselves.
Do you often decline free money when it is given to you? With the argument that "I have already enough money, so thanks but no thanks"?They can open a modest cash shop with little effect on their bottom line. Of course they will do it. They would be completely moronic not to. Just because they are happy with P2P doesn't mean they should decline more free money. Don't be stupid now.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
The main problem is people are sick of all the generic wow clones, and other than indie dev teams thats all these guys shit out. Even wildstar once you get over the combat system is just yet another generic boring wow clone, its why it flopped so hard in such a short time. FF14 wouldnt have survived as a sub game if it had any other name. The Final fantasy name is pretty much the only thing keeping the game from going f2p. With FF14's gameplay if it was any other title it'd have been f2p a while ago.
I'd really love to hear your opinions regarding FF14's P2P success.
Is it the legacy of the complete disaster that was the original FF14 that is making the game so successful?
Is it the fact most people abandoned the original FF14 despite the Final Fantasy name?
Is it the fact FF14:ARR is the only MMO that had to overcome the burden of being a spiritual successor of the complete flop of the same name at the time of release? The fact that while every other MMO has the privilege of being released in a clean slate, FF14 was still considered a synonym for "horrible product" in the minds of the customers?
Clearly FF14: ARR is a great P2P success just because of the Final Fantasy name. Even though history has proven the Final Fantasy name doesn't guarantee success. Even though FF14 was a laughing stock just few years back.
So please tell me more about how these factors are irrelevant and how the game is only riding on the Final Fantasy name for it's success.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Let's see, with P2P, you actually get charged twice, plus a cash shop.
The point is, subscription models never offered more quantity or better quality. That's a myth that people still believe.
WoW is a prime example, especially since Wotlk. Their content has been less with each expansion. They had ~18 months without new content from MoP to Cata release
This argument works as long as we don't start comparing the games. Granted, I wish there were more myths that could be proven to be factual with just a little bit of actual research on the subject.
I agree about WoW though. Pre-Wotlk WoW would have annihilated all competition in quantity and quality, but alas, now only FFXIV remains.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Comments
And yet, still somehow works out as I said regardless. But this is just my personal opinion. I've never played an F2P game that wasn't F2P for a reason. AAA quality doesn't come free.
You think too much into amount over stablity. A P2P game is far more popular with developers if they can maintain it because it's a stable income for the most part. F2P and B2P makes more money over all, but the amount earned fluxulates a lot more from month to month.
For example, each month that a sub is paid for WoW, Blizzard will know how much minimum they'll make that month on the game. League of Legend on the other hand, could make a hundred million one month and ten million another because it depends far more on it's cash shop to make money. A gross estimate is a lot harder to graph and it makes it difficult for the company to put any money into future projects and updates which help maintain the game's popularity and upkeep.
So, yes, F2P makes more money but it doesn't make STABLE money. It's the difference of someone who makes $10 an hour, and someone who makes $10 for every dress sold at a dress shop. I work eight hours and make eighty dollars today, tomorrow and the day after, or I sell eight dresses and make eighty dollars today, ninety dollars tomorrow, and twenty dollars the day after.
That's why developers prefer P2P over B2P (which is a middle ground) and F2P.
No, P2P is honestly more stable of an income due to that predictability. Every player that enters the game is paying a box price first and then a sub - so people who skip out before payment is due already spent the money for the box. This creates a bottom line to work with for the month. Then with subs, you know how many players you have and are paying for the sub. When a player leaves and cancels their subscription, they know they lost revenue simply by that fact. This can be factored into their revenue quickly to distibute wealth to employees and development teams.
If I lost 20% of my playerbase, I know there will be layoffs and development will have to be reworked. Current plans placed on hold in some places to put money into another.
F2P on the other hand does not have this predictability and makes it far less stable. You mention a sale. A sale is not a guarantee, it's a hope. If the majority of people who will buy the products on sale already did or you were just a little behind the times in your plan, you have to fluctulate prices frequently or deal with a loss. The problem is, you don't know how many people will be willing to buy products. Future development plans are rarely big projects - and usually only one or two at a time - because they can't afford the time or predictabilty that P2P has.
As an example, FFXIV was able to put development money and plans into the Gold Saucer, the Main Scenario, Frontlines, several dungeons, and several trials because they had a rough estimate about how many people are paying a sub. A stable amount of money that will be the same from month to month (the sub fee that is), and a loss in player base means they knew where they could place money instead.
A F2P game isn't that lucky because it relies on unpredictable results. For every 100 accounts, you can only hope that 10 of them would actually use the cash shop because most joined the game when they saw the "free" in the title. You have zero guarantees from me that I will be paying for anything in the game, and so results are a lot more wild and varied.
With the example I used before, the person would put a sale on the most popular dress but that isn't a guarantee for revenue. The other person would know the pay cut is coming.
That's why P2P is a more stable environment to be in, and one most developer prefer. F2P might make more, but it's not a guaranteed paycheck and definitely hurts the development part of the game.
You want to leave it at that and I will after I say my peace.
Creating a sale based on player trends is still a hope. Most people that play F2P games are looking at it because it's free, and a sale won't change that. There's also the fact that majority of people who would spend money usually would have even off a sale, so your betting your lot on players that were less likely to buy on the previous price. I would guess that it's probably about 40 to 50 percent that would buy something on sale.
And, of course, there's the problem that once those 40 to 50 percent of people bought the product they are no longer your customer for said product if it goes on sale again or remains on sale for an extended period. Plus once at full price, those people will never need to buy at full price. Eventually, you'll run out of products unless you update the cash shop and money to develop the cash shop is money not being invested into things outside of the cash shop like a new zone. No new in game products means either resentful fans or bored fans - both of which will quit. The people that replace them are not guaranteed to buy anything but could love the social aspect or gameplay, so you could lose a customer to someone who would stay longer but not buy anything.
This creates an unpredictabilty in the same way the weather is unpredictable. Just because you can make a rough guess on data doesn't mean you won't get more wrong than right.
F2P cash shops are essentially giving away the dress but asking to pay for each accessory. P2P is asking you to pay for the dress, then tells you that if you pay a certain amount each month you'll get ALL of those accesories. Most gamers by nature want it all, so you're more likely either frustratingly go without and quit if the cash shop is P2W or spend more money in a cash shop than you would paying a subscription.
Also, a P2P that has stabalized in the player base is more likely going to flucluate by a smaller amount than a F2P on a month to month basis. That's why F2P has sales more often and why P2P keeps a steady sub price. If they had to go on sale then there was a very obvious dip in that day or week's profits. That doesn't speak of stability in the slightest - stability is after all, a lack of change. A sale is a change, so obviously it's not stable.
Containing flux so your revenue either evens out or switches to profit isn't stability.
That's why P2P is a far more preferable money plan.
Hmm, not sure. You should trying asking the FFXIV board on here. I'll check around to see.
Let's see, with P2P, you actually get charged twice, plus a cash shop.
The point is, subscription models never offered more quantity or better quality. That's a myth that people still believe.
WoW is a prime example, especially since Wotlk. Their content has been less with each expansion. They had ~18 months without new content from MoP to Cata release.
It seems to me like some P2P mmo's are triple dipping these days, compared to the other models. At least with f2p/b2p, i can manage my own money on my own terms.
F2P works a lot like the real world though. Walmart and McDonalds allow free access to their buildings, and they work with unpredictability just fine. Allowing free access to a service works all the time in certain markets. (terrible analogy i know)..
WoW basically gets away with that by the large amount of people who have created friends and spent so much time advancing their character along with the paid investment that they feel like giving the game up would be wasting all of that away.
Yoshi-P has talked about the business model before and has at least said that as a new game and because of FFXIV 1.0, they don't have the street cred to do that, so they have to offer the large and frequent and high quality amount of content they do. So, Yoshi-P is at least trying to offer you the huge amount of quality and quantity that you want with FFXIV:ARR.
I'm not advertising, but at least he's been true to his word about it for 1.5 years. Yes, there's a buy for the box and expansion AND a cash shop, but at least the game feels like it's giving you your money's worth (plus most cash shop money has gone straight back to the game for EU servers so far).
Walking into Walmart and McDonalds is more akin to a game having a free trial - you get in, see what it's offering you, but don't get anything until you pay for it. To go further, F2P is more like buying each item off the menu while P2P is buying a happy meal - you might save money on the first this time but if you only bought a burger and want fries, you'll be spending more while I have the burger and fries and toy and animal crackers to enjoy plus free refills on my Sprite.
There are many AAA MMO's that used to be P2P though. They went F2P, because people didn't deem their gameplay design, worthy of a subscription.
That doesn't mean that their animations, models, services, worlds, and other things, were of bad quality. It was pretty much the overall game design, such as quest-hubs, or themepark elements, etc. This is what made people stop playing the same old designs, or "wow-clones" as people like to call them.
A prime example would be Wildstar. A P2P game with AAA quality that is on life support, due to their hardcore endgame designs.
Now look at F2P, and you'll still see some quality content coming out, whether it's dungeons, art, models, character customization (Black Desert), innovative designs (Archeage in some respects), etc.
Eastern MMO's have come a long way in quality and innovation. Moonlight Blade, Black Desert, Revelations, Swordsman Online, Age of WuShu, etc. How anyone can think these are bad quality is beyond me. When i think of bad quality, i look at all the current Kickstarter projects. lol.
People are confusing restrictions with quality. F2P usually have restrictions, but that doesn't necessarily mean the MMO is of bad quality.
I wouldn't say eve online has much for content, unless you call having skills magically raise while you do nothing content, if you can't tell I hate the skill system in eve. I feel its the worse part of the game and its just an excuse for them to get you to keep a sub open in a otherwise extremly shallow game.
I agree on FF14, dispite it being just the newest (and prettiest) geberic wow clone, it does update often, there is a fair amount to do. I just wish crafting (other than cooking/alch) wasn't so worthless, all the best gear is raided so.. yeah, no real point to crafted stuff once your at level cap anymore. Only exception is cooking and alchemy, you always need food for buffs and consumables to save your butt.
Never played guild wars 2, would like to though.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!
The main problem is people are sick of all the generic wow clones, and other than indie dev teams thats all these guys shit out. Even wildstar once you get over the combat system is just yet another generic boring wow clone, its why it flopped so hard in such a short time. FF14 wouldnt have survived as a sub game if it had any other name. The Final fantasy name is pretty much the only thing keeping the game from going f2p. With FF14's gameplay if it was any other title it'd have been f2p a while ago. I got mutiple jobs at level cap in FF14 as well. Got tired of it. Its been like half a year since i've bothered with mmo's last one I played was wildstar and that lasted till halfway thru the 2nd month after release before I just lost interest due to how repetive it is.
I do however play the shit out of dungeon fighter online. I tried Elsword but I feel elsword is kinda crap compared. I'd love a new sidescrolling beatem up mmorpg like DFO. Even if its a themepark like most are, there is some satisfaction of stringing together huge combos and such, which is something the generic wow clone lacks.
All in all I hate world of warcraft, the game itself is fine, the reason I hate it is how it single handedly destroyed the genre, all that has come out really since its release has been clones of it over and over. When are devs going to learn your not going to dethrone world of warcraft? it has over 10 years of content and a huge playerbase, most mmo's are lucky to hit 1/8th of the playerbase it has. Insted of just trying to copy it do your own thing.
I' d play the shit out of a mmorpg based on dot hack gu for ps2, I loved the battle system and such, tbh games like Dot hack gu, and SAO: hollow fragment are more mmorpg like than actual mmorpgs these days.
The next issue is the fact that most mmo's these day end up bascally being a single player game with a chat room to simulate multiplayer. Its not often you need anyone else for things for alot of the game. I think thats the major downfall it has, its just being made too soloable. Its gotten to the point most people won't group unless they are forced too, which really removes the "MMO" aspect. I'd like to see a mmorpg come out where you can solo, but its like 10 times slower than grouping, to try to force people to group.
Alot of eastern mmo's tend to be bad because they are setup to be completly pay2win. Take Cosmic break, they decided to try a kickstarter to get cosmic break 2 translated, it didn't hit 50% of the 150k they were looking for, why? Because the first game Cosmic Break is known to be horrifically pay2win, like you don't even know. Its one of the worse p2w examples I have seen. There is pretty much no gear or decent robots for free, to upgrade parts you need alot of cash shop items. So the 2nd game didn't meet the kickstarter because of how badly p2w the 1st game was, and people figured it'd just be the same crap all over again.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!
What a crock of shit, FF14 has a great and robust playerbase because it is a well designed game. (dispite your personal opinion) an IP's drawing power might create strong 1st day box sales, but if the game is shit then the players will leave. Has that happened to FF14? nope.
Did it happen to ESO? yup, because it was poorly designed. . .
As i said, it was a bad analogy. lol.
However, P2P does not guarantee access to everything. You still have to pay for extra services, whether it's mounts/minipets in cash shops, or for other services such as server transfers. It really depends on the MMO and it's content and services.
The only real differences are the in-game restrictions between the two models, such as restricting bag & character slots, or in the extreme case of Swtor, restricting hotbars (although most of their restrictions can be unlocked via in-game by purchasing them on AH).
F2P let's you spend money on your own terms, and it only becomes more expensive if you can't control spending. Contrary to popular belief, most f2p games do not have extreme restrictions anymore, as they once were in the past, especially in the east.
P2P is more like a phone or tv subscription, you have to pay for all the unwanted crap that you don't want. Ex. Raids, or PvP.
Wtf are you babbling about, EQ2 trumps all three of those for content, expansions and updates. So saying none are even close is pure bullshit.FFXIV has enough subs to make the devs happy and the playerbase happy. With those undeniable facts out of the way who the hell is scorpex-x to come and say the game doesn't deserve it? You are laughable.
FFXIV keeps proving itself to be incredibly successful in the eyes of it's customers and publisher with the P2P model (which is the only thing that matters). The facts do really speak for themselves.
ESO was honestly doomed from the start, the lack of modability, and how the single player games play just cannot be recreated properly in a mmo setting.
I never said FF14 was bad persay, its is just a generic wow clone though, I don't really see anything that sets it above wow gameplay wise, graphically it slaughters wow, but thats it. I've gotten chars on mutiple servers to level cap in FF14, so I am in a decent place to judge it. Most of the time I played it, it never really did much to impress me, other than graphics its bascally wow with a new skin like alot of mmorpgs end up being these days. Also don't be too sure on that if its bad, most of the ff games after the snes haven't been all that great, yet they still sell millions, even FF13 that got a abyssmal rating sold really well. The point I am trying to make is, devs need to move away from just copying wow and try something new. Indie devs try it but a small team making a mmorpg is no easy feat. The Repopulation has promise, but the devolopment of the game is extremly slow causing loss of interest.
I would love a mmorpg that played like dot hack gu, or sao: hollow fragment gameplay wise. I am tired of these mmorpg's where all you do is go from quest hub to quest hub and thats about it, this is my problem with FF14, because thats all you do for the most part.
Its a double edged sword, indie mmo's like to be indie because they can do what they want, but because they lack the budget a big publisher could provide it takes forever for it to come out.
I honestly though FF14 1.0 was a more interesting game than what it is now. Mostly because of the fact it was more open and less going quest hub to quest hub on rails like it is now. Sadly casuals like to have their hands held at pretty much all times, if there is not some arrow telling casuals exactly where to go, they will quit cuz they are unable to think for themselves most of the time. Its even getting pretty bad in single player games.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!
1. I don't think your scenario makes sense. P2P payment models are based on long-term investments. The underlying reasoning is that if you as a dev keep giving value for the sub fee over a long period of time, you will get a stable return for your investment. Because of the long-term nature of the payment model, I don't see how it is possible that a 20% dip in player subs within a month is realistic at all. P2P is inflexible, but that inflexibility also buys the devs stability on the ROI. There is certainly turbulence in player numbers within the first few months of service, but it stabilizes quite fast.
The point here is that when the customers and the devs are clear on what kind of return they are going to get over a long period of time, and the devs don't completely fuck up something about that mutual agreement, the subscription base will likewise remain stable and predictable over a long period of time. In other words when the customers know what they are getting for their money, there is simply no reason for a sudden 20% drop in the subs within a month. The trends are never that radical. Unless of course the devs completely fail to do something they've managed to succeed in before. This assumption is completely true for the major devs that have respected this mutual agreement - mainly WoW and FFXIV. Whatever big changes there are in the playerbases is a result of many months' trends, not a sudden drop within a month.
2. The problem is there is no mutual agreements to be had here - the devs allocate resources according to the short-term revenue and this increased flexibility also means uncertainty for the customers. There is also less room for long-term development pipelines because both the customers and the devs will be flexible and as such big changes in trends over a short period of time are common. F2P is very volatile in this regard, and long-term plans (that usually provide the best value in the long-term) are simply less feasible. The devs are stuck in the short-term and the players won't know whether there will be new content next month or even next year.
3. There are many more reasons to prefer one payment model over another. For example simply consider WHO is paying for the game. Is it a third party investor? Investors want their returns rather sooner than later. F2P allows for that to happen. Is it an in-house publisher looking for a stable cash cow to finance other projects and provide a stable income in volatile times? P2P allows for that to happen. It's not so much revenue in the short-term but in the long-term the investment will pay itself back. Most games are financed by investors. Investors have the final say in how fast they want their ROI. Most games go F2P.
The point is nobody cares what the devs prefer. The important thing is what the people financing the game prefer, because ultimately the devs are nothing but bitches for the people with the funds.
Last but not the least these thoughts are mirrored by Naoki Yoshida, the man at the helm of one of the more successful P2P MMOs around. Have you actually talked to him? You might get a whole different perspective on the matter than talking with MMO devs that are slaves to the investors. Of course they want to show F2P in a good light.
And yet noone playing. And it s F2P. And still noone playing. In fact, year or two back SOE said EQ2 had 600k accounts created in its LIFETIME (little less than 10 years)
They were so happy with P2P that they needed cash shop.
Yes, facts speak for themselves.
They went F2P because the people in control of the money supply were not happy with the returns they were getting. You can deny it but it is all about what the people with the money want and don't want. Many people deemed these games' gameplay design worthy of subscription. However not enough people deemed the design worthy for the investor to be satisfied on the ROI. And what is enough depends entirely on the expectations of the investors:
FFXIV doesn't have more subs than any AAA P2P-gone-F2P-MMO. In fact some other MMOs have had more subs eve. Yet it keeps trucking as a P2P MMO because the financing parties are happy with it's progress. Clearly there is enough people that deem the design worthy of subscription for the company to continue providing similar service.
Most investors want a fast return on their investments, being greedy. This is why games go F2P. Not because people don't consider them "worthy". Most P2P-gone-F2P games could have found great success in being P2P. But they'd get less money in the short-term. So they switched to F2P.
It is extremely simple.
Do you often decline free money when it is given to you? With the argument that "I have already enough money, so thanks but no thanks"?They can open a modest cash shop with little effect on their bottom line. Of course they will do it. They would be completely moronic not to. Just because they are happy with P2P doesn't mean they should decline more free money. Don't be stupid now.
I'd really love to hear your opinions regarding FF14's P2P success.
Is it the legacy of the complete disaster that was the original FF14 that is making the game so successful?
Is it the fact most people abandoned the original FF14 despite the Final Fantasy name?
Is it the fact FF14:ARR is the only MMO that had to overcome the burden of being a spiritual successor of the complete flop of the same name at the time of release? The fact that while every other MMO has the privilege of being released in a clean slate, FF14 was still considered a synonym for "horrible product" in the minds of the customers?
Clearly FF14: ARR is a great P2P success just because of the Final Fantasy name. Even though history has proven the Final Fantasy name doesn't guarantee success. Even though FF14 was a laughing stock just few years back.
So please tell me more about how these factors are irrelevant and how the game is only riding on the Final Fantasy name for it's success.
This argument works as long as we don't start comparing the games. Granted, I wish there were more myths that could be proven to be factual with just a little bit of actual research on the subject.
I agree about WoW though. Pre-Wotlk WoW would have annihilated all competition in quantity and quality, but alas, now only FFXIV remains.