The subscription model can't take advantage of the "ooo, shiny" impulse buy. Someone who drops $150 on their second month is way more likely to stick around (and buy more stuff) than someone paying $14.99 monthly who has to grind their gear.
I think it partly is because players don't spend as much time playing the same game anymore. If you play a game for 2 hours (or more) each day the price is a bargain for all content in the game.
If you play 2 hours a week it is another matter, then it is actually pretty expensive.
And a game need to be good to be worth a sub, but for some reason don't many players mind playing pretty bad games as long as they are free, and they might still buy some in game stuff for those games for some reason.
I am not sure what possesses people to play a so-so game anyways, I certainly don't have time for that. Life is short and my spare time is even shorter so I prefer to maximize my fun factor even if that cost me a few bucks more.
because if i don't pay each month i have to stop playing. I've spent hundreds on F2P games that allow me to return whenever i want without paying again.
I've never known just a $15 subscription model. Most of those games had regular expansions that were pretty pricey. Plus the price of the original game. Plus extra for the original versions that had extra stuff.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
One thing not mentioned in the thread so far is the difference between mandatory and optional subscription and newer hybrid payment models. Many new games now are releasing with a hybrid of payment systems. They might have an upfront fee, a cash shop, and an optional sub. Most of my main games (SWTOR, ESO) have optional subscriptions which I do pay when I'm playing them heavily.
In short, mandatory sub is mostly a deal breaker, at least long term. However, optional subscription is fine with me. I'm currently paying 3 of them in 3-month chunks.
" hybrid payment systems " and " optional subscriptions " are simply marketing terms for microtransaction items and are specifically used to confuse consumers into buying those types of items.
I absolutely cannot understand why people continue to insist that a $15 monthly microtransaction that gives you a bonus towards game mechanics and still requires you to pay more to get full access is the same as a $15 subscription.
Companies prefer F2P over subs because it nets them more revenue, specially if the game is bad. A small yet extremely vocal minority of gamers also support F2P because either they can't afford monthly subs (jobless or too young to have a CC) or they like to play 15 MMOs at the same time and can't afford all that subscription money for games they only play 30 mins a month.
Actually, according to various surveys by "I pulled this straight out of my arse" and "I call your bullshit", the fast majority of gamers prefer a non sub-based model.
In fact the polling shows that only 3.256% of gamers prefer to pay a sub, and of these 97% are either known game bashers and/or prone to post totally unsubstantiated claims as facts on gaming forums. Apparently this tiny percentage of gamers is also responsible for 99.5% of all whining about gaming.
Analysts at "Denigrating others to make my argument seem superior" are still mulling the data.
Thanks for the all the great, well thought out answer guys! Does anyone have cohort level retention data for an MMO (or multiple MMOs)? I found this article: https://www.superdataresearch.com/blog/understanding-mmo-retention/ which has overall retention data for free to play MMOs and talks some about differences in cohorts, as they discuss earlier adopters generally being easier to retain. I'd love to see some data for a game that shows retention curves for each monthly cohort.
I would love to see more data too. It's a very insightful article. Interesting that 2 years is sort of a magic milestone. I wonder if that is a contributing factor the success of Tera globally.
Although they state that games begin to acquire new, valuable users after two years, I'm not actually seeing that in the (admittedly incomplete) data that they show in the charts.
Took a ‘short break’ from MMORPGs after the initial
excitement about the launch of Ultima Online wore off. Beginning to reacquaint myself with the genre
in anticipation of Chronicles of Elyria (friend code E1E266).
1 guys who spend 10k a month pays for around 666 people. The devil is in the math.
Are the people who spend that kind of money only doing it in 'pay to win' type situations, or are there 'cosmetics whales' as well?
Took a ‘short break’ from MMORPGs after the initial
excitement about the launch of Ultima Online wore off. Beginning to reacquaint myself with the genre
in anticipation of Chronicles of Elyria (friend code E1E266).
I prefer the subscription model. As long as there is nothing 'extra' I need to buy I would happily pay $25.00/month for a game I liked at this point.
I really enjoyed Lineage 2's model prior to F2P. Monthly fee and decent updates every 6 months. I know they fell off their time line here and there but if I am paying a subscription I should not be paying for anything else. I get that not many people agree with this, and I doubt I will ever see another game that does it like this, but you asked and those are my thoughts on the matter.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
An MMO is a service and I don't have a problem paying for a service I enjoy. People pay by the month for internet access, cable TV, phones, etc so why not a game? Maybe $15 is a bit much but removing it entirely doesn't look like a smart idea given the affect the ftp games had on the industry.
Yeah but most games that go F2P are struggling. If F2P makes them 200% more money isnt exactly saying much if their bottom line was really low. Or your game already very successful and opening a flood gate to greed like WOW and STWOR.
Whether you subjectively want to call it "a flood gate to greed" is unrelated.
Games which posted data showed that they all made more* as F2P. *Not just more, but a lot more. Most companies would love to get a huge +25% increase to their revenue, but we're talking about 100-500% increases.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Long as the content is worthy, I wouldnt mind Sub-model mmos. Dude... Whatever you play If you liked the game, you are going to spend money on it. So what is the problem? Does it worth? Totally. I mean think about it you pay it for a month and you actually spend a lot of hours in it in a month time.
Nowadays arcade saloons cost a lot of money, playing a game for 5-10mins cost over 5 quid. I mean come on...
It's not that "people don't like it", but rather that most games aren't worth paying a sub for anymore. Alot of players would gladly pay 25+ monthly to sub to a game if it is a complete package. People would already pay that for a single server on which i.e. roleplaying rules would get enforced.
Since mmorpgs have become fast food in every way, nobody wants to pay restaurant prices. Alot of titles in recent years have obviously been throw-away products, with the studios behind them cashing in on preorders and bringing the game into maintenance mode right away release.
Publishers also cant seem to get the concept of alternative submodels. To them it is still 12,99 or nothing. My bet is that i.e. Wildstar would have had a better chance if the game would have come with various flexible payment models. Like a basic B2P version, a 6,99 all around package and a 9,99 premium sub, all differing in say character slots, bag space and other convenience stuff.
I agree with the first part. I think that recent games lack the quality that allows people to feel satisfied paying a sub fee. I think most whales probably sub where available, so I don't think they are the deciding factor.
Wildstar was worth the sub until they really got behind on problems. The factions were unbalanced, so it became hard to raid on Dominion side, they closed down the RP server, took away people's reserved names, didn't fix crafting. They did redesign the UI after the game started losing pop, breaking lots of addins, that were required to fix bugs, but most of the addin makers had left. Death of 1000 paper cuts really. Some bigger than others. Going F2P didn't fix any of that, and their wasn't any incentive to go premium really.
F2P is popular as others have mentioned because it gets more players into your game. It can extend the life of your game and make some additional profit, but I haven't seen one F2P game yet that I can say has been well done.
Yeah but most games that go F2P are struggling. If F2P makes them 200% more money isnt exactly saying much if their bottom line was really low. Or your game already very successful and opening a flood gate to greed like WOW and STWOR.
Whether you subjectively want to call it "a flood gate to greed" is unrelated.
Games which posted data showed that they all made more* as F2P. *Not just more, but a lot more. Most companies would love to get a huge +25% increase to their revenue, but we're talking about 100-500% increases.
Yes the cash shops are greed. I can't fault them but it's greed.
I understand. What I was saying ithat games that go F2P usually are struggling. What their desired and needed revenue means more than % of increase of a struggling game.
F2P does not make more money. But it created a business climate in which it became more difficult to make money unless you were F2P. Its was like having cheap car insurance launch, which when you need it turns out to be rather poor, but it is hard to sell more expensive insurance after that.
You are right about the concerns that were raised right back in the day. But it started more in the immediate post WoW era, not sure there were that many F2P MMOs until then. And for so many of us they have been born out.
The top ten MMOs by revenue 2014 are mostly subscription, or were subscription and became Sub/F2P hybrids. The data confirms that subscription revenue is in decline but I would suggest it has become impossible to say to what extent. For example, if you are a gold subscription member in a MMO, how many extra cash shop items are you buying? In other words of all the revue generated in a cash shop how much is additional purchases from subscribers?
So while I accept that up to the point subscriptions became part of the cash shop they were a falling proportion. Once you have subscriptions in cash shops the situation becomes so blurred it is hard to tell what is happening.
No, F2P makes more money. Games posted 200%-500% more revenue after switching. (Which is an apples to apples comparison, and not the fallacious "WOW makes the most so F2P isn't best" argument you're presenting. If WOW had been F2P it'd have made a lot more money.)
The concerns I referred to were complaints about subscription games which started in the UO era and were at their loudest in the EQ era. It's possible you weren't paying attention to what general gamers were saying back then, but on general gaming forums it was a frequent complaint anytime EQ was mentioned.
I mistook what you were saying about the posts, indeed many did say the subs were high before F2P really got of the ground. But have you ever known people not to complain about having to spend money?
I am not making an argument about WoW, it was but one of ten top revenue MMOs which to my knowledge all started as subscription MMOs. Most are now some version of F2P/Sub hybrid. So sure itemised purchases have given them a huge boost, but starting as F2P does not get you into the big top ten league. The effect of F2P on the business climate for subscription cannot be underestimated either.
It is very hard to separate the idea of subscription from the idea of F2P now you have subs as a cash shop item. Do the itemized cash shop revenue from superdata include a subscription as a purchase?
While we can argue what was the best revenue model on the run up to where we are today, I think it has been a pointless conjecture for the last few years. The revenue models have merged to much, subscription becomes sub with cash shop. F2P becomes or even starts now with a sub option.
The reason why the industry is shifting towards the F2P model is cost efficiency. To release a box purchase, subscription based game, you not only have to promise and display a great product, but sell the fact that your game will receive enough regular updates to justify the monthly cost.
This means companies have to invest not only in getting the original title out, but have to make future development plans and keep on enough staff to get meaningful content delivered on a regular basis. This requires so much budget for the expected turn-around that in turn's off potential investors and publishers since they can make about the same profit with much lower risk by released F2P games with cash shops.
As previously mentioned in this thread, F2P games benefit from the same hype and early purchase gross as paid titles which greatly help payoff for the development of the game. The advantage is in that they don't have to carry as much staff on hand since they don't actually owe future content, it's simply delivered at their own pace and secondly, they save on servers (as I'm sure most people have noticed). By this I mean, servers in the first few weeks/month of a freshly launched F2P are absolutely horrendous and people always proclaim "why don't they buy better servers, more bandwidth?" Simple answer is, they don't have to. Unlike a game where you are paying for access, in a F2P if you can't log in, well too bad for you.
This stresses the sub based titles to invest not only in man-power and future development but also better servers than their competitors as a person paying for access has the right to do so at their convenience and not yours.
The last point I would like to finish on is that people tend to confuse profit and sales. As a gamer, I would actually want a company to be posting high sales with less emphasis on profit, which would mean that the amounts of spending on infrastructure (servers) and staff counter balances overall profit. That being said, I find the nickel and diming that gamers were subjected to in the late 90's and early 2000's have left gamers much more demanding of game publishers and has unfortunately, created the market for F2P titles to take over.
Dakilla[666] ~ The Realm ~ Level 1000 enchanter (retired) Maranthoric ~ La 4ieme Prophetie ~ Level 160 (5x) HE/Feu (de retour) Leonthoric[DDC] ~ EVE online ~ <Fire The "Laser"> (retired)
An MMO is a service and I don't have a problem paying for a service I enjoy. People pay by the month for internet access, cable TV, phones, etc so why not a game?
Because the competition is free?
It is not about the amount of money $15 is dirt cheap .. cheaper than a IMAX 3D ticket, about the same as a wine flight or a class of wine in a good restaurant.
But I cannot get a good glass of wine for nothing .. not even a sip but I certainly can play a fun MMO for nothing. So why would I even pay a cent for a MMO?
Certainly i will play some money for a single player game, because I cannot get the same entertainment without paying .. but MMOs?
Yes the cash shops are greed. I can't fault them but it's greed.
I understand. What I was saying ithat games that go F2P usually are struggling. What their desired and needed revenue means more than % of increase of a struggling game.
Do you ever make concrete factual posts, or is vague nonsense all you have?
Your favorite games of all-time "are greed" because they all charged money for the experience. Notice how calling things "greed" is vague to the point of meaninglessness.
It's similarly meaningless to point out that struggling MMORPGs went F2P since nearly everyone in the market went F2P.
Just take some time to think before posting, and make concrete, meaningful statements. If you don't have something concrete to say it's okay not to post.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yes the cash shops are greed. I can't fault them but it's greed.
I understand. What I was saying ithat games that go F2P usually are struggling. What their desired and needed revenue means more than % of increase of a struggling game.
Do you ever make concrete factual posts, or is vague nonsense all you have?
Your favorite games of all-time "are greed" because they all charged money for the experience. Notice how calling things "greed" is vague to the point of meaninglessness.
It's similarly meaningless to point out that struggling MMORPGs went F2P since nearly everyone in the market went F2P.
Just take some time to think before posting, and make concrete, meaningful statements. If you don't have something concrete to say it's okay not to post.
Basically anything that isn't free is greed! hahaha.
I like when they say something along the lines of they would pay if the game was good enough but then have a list of high standard criteria that virtually no game could achieve. They are entitled freeloaders.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Yes the cash shops are greed. I can't fault them but it's greed.
I understand. What I was saying ithat games that go F2P usually are struggling. What their desired and needed revenue means more than % of increase of a struggling game.
Do you ever make concrete factual posts, or is vague nonsense all you have?
Your favorite games of all-time "are greed" because they all charged money for the experience. Notice how calling things "greed" is vague to the point of meaninglessness.
It's similarly meaningless to point out that struggling MMORPGs went F2P since nearly everyone in the market went F2P.
Just take some time to think before posting, and make concrete, meaningful statements. If you don't have something concrete to say it's okay not to post.
Lol, you're taking this personal?
Everyone knows capitalism is driven by greed. I should have been more precise in saying that cash shops from successful MMORPG are very greedy. They not only milk a sub but get them on the cash shop end as well. Understand now?
Most MMORPG were pretty much struggling to meet expectations so obviously it's a much easier sell to be "free." Not only that it's harder to sell something when the competition is free... just ask Netscape.
But my point was if you're making 5 dollars a month an 8000% increase doesn't mean you're making enough money to pay your bills. That was my point in saying that the increase doesn't necessarily mean they're making a ton of money just because they went F2P. Understand now?
The rest of what you said just your typical drivel.
People don't like it because the games suck companies don't like it because people don't like it Hmm.....Wait a sec..... Maybe if the games didn't suck.......... Nahh, forget I said anything.
Comments
If you play 2 hours a week it is another matter, then it is actually pretty expensive.
And a game need to be good to be worth a sub, but for some reason don't many players mind playing pretty bad games as long as they are free, and they might still buy some in game stuff for those games for some reason.
I am not sure what possesses people to play a so-so game anyways, I certainly don't have time for that. Life is short and my spare time is even shorter so I prefer to maximize my fun factor even if that cost me a few bucks more.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
" hybrid payment systems " and " optional subscriptions " are simply marketing terms for microtransaction items and are specifically used to confuse consumers into buying those types of items.
I absolutely cannot understand why people continue to insist that a $15 monthly microtransaction that gives you a bonus towards game mechanics and still requires you to pay more to get full access is the same as a $15 subscription.
Or from a devs point of view, why restrict whales to pay $15 a month when they want to spend a lot more?
In fact the polling shows that only 3.256% of gamers prefer to pay a sub, and of these 97% are either known game bashers and/or prone to post totally unsubstantiated claims as facts on gaming forums. Apparently this tiny percentage of gamers is also responsible for 99.5% of all whining about gaming.
Analysts at "Denigrating others to make my argument seem superior" are still mulling the data.
Took a ‘short break’ from MMORPGs after the initial excitement about the launch of Ultima Online wore off. Beginning to reacquaint myself with the genre in anticipation of Chronicles of Elyria (friend code E1E266).
Took a ‘short break’ from MMORPGs after the initial excitement about the launch of Ultima Online wore off. Beginning to reacquaint myself with the genre in anticipation of Chronicles of Elyria (friend code E1E266).
I really enjoyed Lineage 2's model prior to F2P. Monthly fee and decent updates every 6 months. I know they fell off their time line here and there but if I am paying a subscription I should not be paying for anything else. I get that not many people agree with this, and I doubt I will ever see another game that does it like this, but you asked and those are my thoughts on the matter.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Games which posted data showed that they all made more* as F2P. *Not just more, but a lot more. Most companies would love to get a huge +25% increase to their revenue, but we're talking about 100-500% increases.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Nowadays arcade saloons cost a lot of money, playing a game for 5-10mins cost over 5 quid. I mean come on...
1. So you're saying they return to operating exactly as most games do? It's very normal that nearly all games don't share anything about revenue.
2. The same company switched two games. Do you think they would've switched the other game if the revenue didn't keep delivering?
It's okay, it doesn't matter if players plug their ears and ignore F2P's strengths. Developers aren't ignoring them.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Wildstar was worth the sub until they really got behind on problems. The factions were unbalanced, so it became hard to raid on Dominion side, they closed down the RP server, took away people's reserved names, didn't fix crafting. They did redesign the UI after the game started losing pop, breaking lots of addins, that were required to fix bugs, but most of the addin makers had left. Death of 1000 paper cuts really. Some bigger than others. Going F2P didn't fix any of that, and their wasn't any incentive to go premium really.
F2P is popular as others have mentioned because it gets more players into your game. It can extend the life of your game and make some additional profit, but I haven't seen one F2P game yet that I can say has been well done.
I understand. What I was saying ithat games that go F2P usually are struggling. What their desired and needed revenue means more than % of increase of a struggling game.
I mistook what you were saying about the posts, indeed many did say the subs were high before F2P really got of the ground. But have you ever known people not to complain about having to spend money?
I am not making an argument about WoW, it was but one of ten top revenue MMOs which to my knowledge all started as subscription MMOs. Most are now some version of F2P/Sub hybrid. So sure itemised purchases have given them a huge boost, but starting as F2P does not get you into the big top ten league. The effect of F2P on the business climate for subscription cannot be underestimated either.
It is very hard to separate the idea of subscription from the idea of F2P now you have subs as a cash shop item. Do the itemized cash shop revenue from superdata include a subscription as a purchase?
While we can argue what was the best revenue model on the run up to where we are today, I think it has been a pointless conjecture for the last few years. The revenue models have merged to much, subscription becomes sub with cash shop. F2P becomes or even starts now with a sub option.
This means companies have to invest not only in getting the original title out, but have to make future development plans and keep on enough staff to get meaningful content delivered on a regular basis. This requires so much budget for the expected turn-around that in turn's off potential investors and publishers since they can make about the same profit with much lower risk by released F2P games with cash shops.
As previously mentioned in this thread, F2P games benefit from the same hype and early purchase gross as paid titles which greatly help payoff for the development of the game. The advantage is in that they don't have to carry as much staff on hand since they don't actually owe future content, it's simply delivered at their own pace and secondly, they save on servers (as I'm sure most people have noticed). By this I mean, servers in the first few weeks/month of a freshly launched F2P are absolutely horrendous and people always proclaim "why don't they buy better servers, more bandwidth?" Simple answer is, they don't have to. Unlike a game where you are paying for access, in a F2P if you can't log in, well too bad for you.
This stresses the sub based titles to invest not only in man-power and future development but also better servers than their competitors as a person paying for access has the right to do so at their convenience and not yours.
The last point I would like to finish on is that people tend to confuse profit and sales. As a gamer, I would actually want a company to be posting high sales with less emphasis on profit, which would mean that the amounts of spending on infrastructure (servers) and staff counter balances overall profit. That being said, I find the nickel and diming that gamers were subjected to in the late 90's and early 2000's have left gamers much more demanding of game publishers and has unfortunately, created the market for F2P titles to take over.
Dakilla[666] ~ The Realm ~ Level 1000 enchanter (retired)
Maranthoric ~ La 4ieme Prophetie ~ Level 160 (5x) HE/Feu (de retour)
Leonthoric[DDC] ~ EVE online ~ <Fire The "Laser"> (retired)
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
It is not about the amount of money $15 is dirt cheap .. cheaper than a IMAX 3D ticket, about the same as a wine flight or a class of wine in a good restaurant.
But I cannot get a good glass of wine for nothing .. not even a sip but I certainly can play a fun MMO for nothing. So why would I even pay a cent for a MMO?
Certainly i will play some money for a single player game, because I cannot get the same entertainment without paying .. but MMOs?
- Your favorite games of all-time "are greed" because they all charged money for the experience. Notice how calling things "greed" is vague to the point of meaninglessness.
- It's similarly meaningless to point out that struggling MMORPGs went F2P since nearly everyone in the market went F2P.
Just take some time to think before posting, and make concrete, meaningful statements. If you don't have something concrete to say it's okay not to post."What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Basically anything that isn't free is greed! hahaha.
I like when they say something along the lines of they would pay if the game was good enough but then have a list of high standard criteria that virtually no game could achieve. They are entitled freeloaders.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Lol, you're taking this personal?
Everyone knows capitalism is driven by greed. I should have been more precise in saying that cash shops from successful MMORPG are very greedy. They not only milk a sub but get them on the cash shop end as well. Understand now?
Most MMORPG were pretty much struggling to meet expectations so obviously it's a much easier sell to be "free." Not only that it's harder to sell something when the competition is free... just ask Netscape.
But my point was if you're making 5 dollars a month an 8000% increase doesn't mean you're making enough money to pay your bills. That was my point in saying that the increase doesn't necessarily mean they're making a ton of money just because they went F2P. Understand now?
The rest of what you said just your typical drivel.
companies don't like it because people don't like it
Hmm.....Wait a sec.....
Maybe if the games didn't suck..........
Nahh, forget I said anything.