Originally posted by Po_gg so you say, wow, aoc, lotro and sto are all have the same model, because they don't have upfront fees.
I agree that the line between trial and F2P may be thin but it is still there. The difference between WoW and F2P titles is that WoW is still based on revenue from regular monthly subscriptions which isn't a case of F2P games.
AoC, LOTRO or STO are all same F2P model, just different implementation.
Originally posted by Vesavius OK, fine, you know it all. I have no need to educate you in Marketing 101. Believe what you will.Do yourself a favour though and Google 'Marketing creating demand' and have a read.
Ah, famous "google it" argument...or rather lack of...
There are a huge number of different business models that call themselves "free to play", and they shouldn't all be lumped in together.
/
This..
Double this... F2p is just a wide category with a whole bunch of business models, and they are so different (and changing constantly) that it's hard to keep a decent debate over it. Even if you narrow down the topic for only a few games which has similar f2p models, there are still the actual players whit their differencies.
Like for the title ("f2p is expensive"), and narrowing it to LotRO (because of Chilliesauce's question about non-restricting games) :
if you're a former player (vip -> premium) and don't care about pvmp it's totally free to play (if you wanna pvmp, vip is a must...)
if you're a newcomer, and don't have a problem with grinding, it's free as well
if you don't like grind, well, then yep, it could be expensive after Lone Lands...
And we could make this list on every single f2p models out there - a very long list would it be what's with EVE, not even a f2p title, but you can play it totally free with plex...
so basically, f2p's are expensive? depends on a lot of things...
All P2W games are designed around monetizing game mechanics, and this is the one and only underlying design that governs all aspects of the game. This means that all P2W games are the same when discussing the business model.
A P2W game with multiple payment options doesn't make it different from any other P2W game.
AoC, LOTRO or STO are all same F2P model, just different implementation.
For me it's ok, then implementations, not models. I just tried to point out, that these differencies (in implementation ) connects with the 'cost' of the game in question, basically that's what defines how expensive the game will be, for the user.
User is a key factor too, if he's willing to pay a lot, then any game will be expensive for him, regardless of the implemetation settings
Originally posted by Po_gg For me it's ok, then implementations, not models. I just tried to point out, that these differencies (in implementation ) connects with the 'cost' of the game in question, basically that's what defines how expensive the game will be, for the user. User is a key factor too, if he's willing to pay a lot, then any game will be expensive for him, regardless of the implemetation settings
I am not sure what you are trying to say...
User is still defining factor, cash shop is the limiting. Some cash shops will allow to spend more if you wish so?
If something is free your either going to wind up paying too much for it, or it's not worth anything.
I have been reading quite a lot about how F2P could replace traditional subs and I'm going to let you guys in on a little secret. You really don't want that to happen. It sounds like your going to get to play a game for free, never fork over any cash and just love every second of it. Sorry, that is NOT going to happen.
It has already happend to me, and a majority of MMO players. Research has shown that a MAJORITY of MMO players do NOT pay. The "whales", a small percentage of the players, are footing the bill and I am 100% fine with it.
I agree -- in most FTP games I end up spending about $50 per month to play when I am playing. Subscription games are much cheaper. The other issue is a lot of FTP games have you WANTING to spend even more -- There are a lot of people who spend $200, $500, even $1,000+ per month to beat you. Worst are the games with contests -- be the first to do X -- non-big spenders need not apply. I actually quit one game that I had started which had a top 5 contest that I was about to get 4th place in but ended up 6th because 2 people decided to spend over $1,000 right before the end just to get ahead of me for a $200 payout. Note in this game I had only spent $40 and was probably the lowest spender with any chance whatsoever. I was even in a conversation with one of those people. He apologized but said he had to do it -- yeah.
Unless you are irresponsible being, do not drag other people into it. No one else is responsible for your addiction but you.
Then you might have a wrong idea of addiction, addiction is caused by the product, not by the consumer, that is why they are usualy taken as being "bad".
Thinking all f2p model are awsome and are all but adictive is quiet ridiculous honestly, most of modern mmo have pushed the addictive factor to no end f2p or sub model is honestly to put in the same bag at this point, not being aware or straight up denying this is just strange honestly.
Unless you are irresponsible being, do not drag other people into it. No one else is responsible for your addiction but you.
Then you might have a wrong idea of addiction, addiction is caused by the product, not by the consumer, that is why they are usualy taken as being "bad".
Thinking all f2p model are awsome and are all but adictive is quiet ridiculous honestly, most of modern mmo have pushed the addictive factor to no end f2p or sub model is honestly to put in the same bag at this point, not being aware or straight up denying this is just strange honestly.
Actually that would be wrong. According to the most recent neurbiology studies and evolutionary studies in adicitno, an "addiction" is the result of receptor disregulation.
Also most people will not become addicted to any one substance. Cocaine and heroine only have approximately a 20% addiction rate, marijuana 4%, Alcohol has a near 100% rate because it can act upon approximately 8 different receptors.
So to clarify it is only an addiction if a receptor is disregulating, and in hard drugs only 20% or less will have a receptor disregulating. The rest is an abuse, which is still damaging but is not an addiction.
Therefore the product does not cause an addiction in most people unless there is allready a potential for a disregulation (which in that case the product did cause it), or the receptor is allready disregulating (the product did not cause it).
MMO"s would be an abuse, not an addiction. There is no MMO receptor. And, before people say you can be addicted to anything, no you can't. You can abuse anything but an addiction needs a disregulated receptor. And no you cannot, according again to neurobiology studies, become addicted to your own endorphines. Adrenaline junkes may be an abuse, but is not a disregulation.
People that are not involved in addiction research or up to current standards should not discuss what it is/is not or is caused by. It's just a spread of ignorance
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by Requiamer Then you might have a wrong idea of addiction, addiction is caused by the product, not by the consumer, that is why they are usualy taken as being "bad".
Erm no.
Addiction is a state, there is no implication about a cause.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar People that are not involved in addiction research or up to current standards should not discuss what it is/is not or is caused by. It's just a spread of ignorance
And yet it is you bringing up DSM and neurobiology...you could not ridicule yourself more.
Pseudo-sciences are pseudo-science, no serious business there.
People that are not involved in addiction research or up to current standards should not discuss what it is/is not or is caused by. It's just a spread of ignorance
And yet it is you bringing up DSM and neurobiology...you could not ridicule yourself more.
Pseudo-sciences are pseudo-science, no serious business there.
Neurobiology is not a pseudoscience. The DSM is not a science, it is a collection of the current methods and diagnostic criteria.
Receptors, neurotransmitters and there effects are both measurable and observable.
As I said unless you are in the field and up to date, discussing 20 year old out of date theories on boards is pointless.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
There is no one set of "F2P" models. Every company, every game has their own ideal and description of what "F2P" actually means. No argument can cover them all. And really, it boils down to what each person defines as a good deal vs not.
F2P is fine if you play casually. Not in terms of the amount of time played but in terms of competitiveness. I you are too competitive and you just have to win, either in PvP or in gearing up for PvE then you may have a difficult time with F2P. But if you can just play the game and let it come at you at its natural progesssion for what ever amount of effort you choose to put in then you can easily get away with never paying a cent and simply enjoy the game for what it offers for free.
Bleh. I don't like f2p because I am broke, I like f2p because I don't feel like I am tied to a specific game. I can mix and match and try a lot of games out, and don't have to quit one to play another.
Further evidence that the F2P model creates a transient non-investing fickle player base.
It really is bad for MMORPGs on so many levels.
Creates it? If the devs are the greedy evil corporate suits that they are portrayed as, then wouldn't it make more sense that the playerbase not only was pre-existing but large enough that the business model was changed to fit how they choose to pay/play?
No, a payment model can obviously change player culture. Anyone watching the industry (REALLY watching) can tell you this.
With nothing invested, either finanicially or emotionally, means a game is easy to jump in and then leave just as quickly.
The payment model doesn't change culture when it comes to leisure and entertainment - culture changes the payment model. For example, with internet access, consumers didn't switch from hourly payments to monthly fees because the ISPs dictated it. The ISPs switched to monthly because consumers were already showing a preference for monthly fees in other entertainment and luxury channels such as cable TV and cellphones.
The issue you present in the second sentence is an interesting one. Most of today's MMOs are not designed or managed to foster or maintain communities. There is no way for people to create their own groups or social units. Other than a chat channel, there is no way for like-minded players to find each other, congregate, and interact. This could be entirely because it's not what today's players want, so devoting resources to it would be a waste. It could also be because devs believe in some 'One Big Happy Family' mentality where everyone suddenly shows complete patience, tolerance, and love for people of all ages, creeds, religions, colors and degrees of obnoxious.
Either way, having invested 15 or 150 dollars into a game doesn't change any of that. The money invested doesn't create the ties, it's what you've accumulated in the game world, which can be just as much social bonds as it is epics, probably moreso.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
On average, the revenue per active player is lower than P2P games but the active player base is larger because the game is easier to access(no fee before hand).
Example in numbers:
P2P game has 100k subs with 15 USD monthly fee, generating 1.5M USD per month. F2P game has 300k active players with 5 USD revenue per active user, generating 1.5 USD per month.
There are pros and cons for each model.
Gdemami, the equation is actualy a bit more complicated then that. In the above example, your FTP model would be substantialy LESS proffitable then the sub model.
Remember each USER is a COST center to the company (bandwidth, storage, CPU, customer service, etc). Each user will cost the publisher, on average, a certain amount per month...depending upon the level of service provided.
- Under the subscription based model, the minimum amount of revenue per month is FIXED. If you are charging a $15 per month subscription and it COSTS you $5 per month to support each user then you can predict a $10 per month operating proffit per user.
- Under the F2P model, your gross revenue per user is VARIABLE. Some users might provide no revenue, i.e. they spend 0 that month (meaning your are losing money on them, since you still have to pay thier support costs)...others might pay ALOT.
In order to determine how much larger an audience a F2P game needs in order to make the equivalent proffit as a subscription based game, you need to factor the support costs per user into the equation as well.
Using your example above.....and assuming the 2 games provide each user with the same quality of service... let's hypotheticaly call it $3 per month (and that's probably not accurate, but we're just dealing with hypotheticals here)
P2P 100K user @ $15 per month revenue & $3 per month costs = 1.2M proffit
F2P 300K user @ $5 per month revenue & $3 per month cost = 600K Proffit
In order to be equal in proffit our F2P game would actualy need 600K users....either that or it would need to find a way to substantialy cut the cost of providing services to it's users.
Bleh. I don't like f2p because I am broke, I like f2p because I don't feel like I am tied to a specific game. I can mix and match and try a lot of games out, and don't have to quit one to play another.
Further evidence that the F2P model creates a transient non-investing fickle player base.
It really is bad for MMORPGs on so many levels.
Creates it? If the devs are the greedy evil corporate suits that they are portrayed as, then wouldn't it make more sense that the playerbase not only was pre-existing but large enough that the business model was changed to fit how they choose to pay/play?
No, a payment model can obviously change player culture. Anyone watching the industry (REALLY watching) can tell you this.
With nothing invested, either finanicially or emotionally, means a game is easy to jump in and then leave just as quickly.
The payment model doesn't change culture when it comes to leisure and entertainment - culture changes the payment model. For example, with internet access, consumers didn't switch from hourly payments to monthly fees because the ISPs dictated it. The ISPs switched to monthly because consumers were already showing a preference for monthly fees in other entertainment and luxury channels such as cable TV and cellphones.
The issue you present in the second sentence is an interesting one. Most of today's MMOs are not designed or managed to foster or maintain communities. There is no way for people to create their own groups or social units. Other than a chat channel, there is no way for like-minded players to find each other, congregate, and interact. This could be entirely because it's not what today's players want, so devoting resources to it would be a waste. It could also be because devs believe in some 'One Big Happy Family' mentality where everyone suddenly shows complete patience, tolerance, and love for people of all ages, creeds, religions, colors and degrees of obnoxious.
Either way, having invested 15 or 150 dollars into a game doesn't change any of that. The money invested doesn't create the ties, it's what you've accumulated in the game world, which can be just as much social bonds as it is epics, probably moreso.
Actualy it's BOTH. There are times where consumer desires tend to drive business/payment models....other times where industries are trying to proactively PUSH consumer trends in a particular way. It's a pretty complicated give and take....Also trends can be largely dependant upon OTHER factors.
In the example you used, one of the big factors that led ISP's to switch from hourly charges to monthly was due to thier COSTS to carry bandwidth going down dramaticaly due to advances in technology and other factors. They COULD have offered monthly based fee's early on...but it would have been so prohibitively expensive that most customers would have been priced out of the market. Offering hourly rates was what allowed them to offer services within the price range that was affordable to people. Once thier costs went down dramaticaly, it started allowing them to offer monthly based plans that were in price ranges that most consumers could actualy afford. Without that, consumers could have wished for cheap, unlimited monthly internet all they wanted....would have been as effective as wishing for cheap tourist travel to the moon.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Neurobiology is not a pseudoscience.
Receptors and neurotransmitters are surely measurable and observable. The problem comes when you start making implications based on those observations and try to explain human behavior.
Psychology or neuroscience may use scientific methods but produce non-scientific conclusions.
Therefore both are just pseudo-sciences and unless you understand the difference and what science is about, there is indeed no point in this discussion.
Bleh. I don't like f2p because I am broke, I like f2p because I don't feel like I am tied to a specific game. I can mix and match and try a lot of games out, and don't have to quit one to play another.
Further evidence that the F2P model creates a transient non-investing fickle player base.
It really is bad for MMORPGs on so many levels.
Creates it? If the devs are the greedy evil corporate suits that they are portrayed as, then wouldn't it make more sense that the playerbase not only was pre-existing but large enough that the business model was changed to fit how they choose to pay/play?
No, a payment model can obviously change player culture. Anyone watching the industry (REALLY watching) can tell you this.
With nothing invested, either finanicially or emotionally, means a game is easy to jump in and then leave just as quickly.
The payment model doesn't change culture when it comes to leisure and entertainment - culture changes the payment model. For example, with internet access, consumers didn't switch from hourly payments to monthly fees because the ISPs dictated it. The ISPs switched to monthly because consumers were already showing a preference for monthly fees in other entertainment and luxury channels such as cable TV and cellphones.
The issue you present in the second sentence is an interesting one. Most of today's MMOs are not designed or managed to foster or maintain communities. There is no way for people to create their own groups or social units. Other than a chat channel, there is no way for like-minded players to find each other, congregate, and interact. This could be entirely because it's not what today's players want, so devoting resources to it would be a waste. It could also be because devs believe in some 'One Big Happy Family' mentality where everyone suddenly shows complete patience, tolerance, and love for people of all ages, creeds, religions, colors and degrees of obnoxious.
Either way, having invested 15 or 150 dollars into a game doesn't change any of that. The money invested doesn't create the ties, it's what you've accumulated in the game world, which can be just as much social bonds as it is epics, probably moreso.
Actualy it's BOTH. There are times where consumer desires tend to drive business/payment models....other times where industries are trying to proactively PUSH consumer trends in a particular way. It's a pretty complicated give and take....Also trends can be largely dependant upon OTHER factors.
In the example you used, one of the big factors that led ISP's to switch from hourly charges to monthly was due to thier COSTS to carry bandwidth going down dramaticaly due to advances in technology and other factors. They COULD have offered monthly based fee's early on...but it would have been so prohibitively expensive that most customers would have been priced out of the market. Offering hourly rates was what allowed them to offer services within the price range that was affordable to people. Once thier costs went down dramaticaly, it started allowing them to offer monthly based plans that were in price ranges that most consumers could actualy afford. Without that, consumers could have wished for cheap, unlimited monthly internet all they wanted....would have been as effective as wishing for cheap tourist travel to the moon.
That it was done when it was technologically and financially feasible is a given. You just agreed that the change make for a more palatable price for the consumer, so I'm not seeing how that's an example of the ISPs trying to push them into a plan they otherwise weren't already predisposed to finding palatable. In your example, the business model was changed to fit the consumer desire, not the other way around.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Gdemami, the equation is actualy a bit more complicated then that.
I was never pretending it isn't. I just illustrated strategy behind the model.
As long as your "points" go:
1) We talked about average revenue per user, that includes non-paying customers as well. So no "variables".
2) The costs do not scaling linear. What might be 3 USD per user at 100k player base can be 1.2 USD per user at 300k player base.
On number 2 that's generaly NOT true for OPERATING costs. The scale IS pretty linear once you get beyond a certain, pretty minimal, threshold. You can't really cut costs much there without cutting service. Depending upon how much you have to scale up, you're costs can actualy go up per user as with larger operations there tends to be levels of inefficiency and indirection built into the overhead.
Where you get some real cost savings in scaling is on the Development side. It costs you as much to write 1 piece of code that 10 people will use as 100,000, etc. However, Development costs are generaly placed into a seperate bucket....since the vast majority of them come up front before you earn a single $ back in revenue. Most organizations I know don't factor them into Operating costs, they treat them as Debt that has to be repaid. Ongoing development is generaly factored into Overhead, along with things like Finance, Sales & Marketing, HR, etc. Those things can be pretty fungible, but your Operating Costs are pretty much fixed per user once you get any amount of volume whatsoever. Things like hardware/hosting, technical operations staff. Most companies also tend to put Customer Service under that umbrella, precisely because it scales directly with users as well. Those all scale linearly.
Sorry but you are no mathematician - especially when reading your last paragraph.
I never claimed it to be exact numbers to be taken literary, that is your problem that you do not understand a demonstrational example.
I think I also found your another problem but nvm....
So, what you are saying (aside from repeating yourself) is that your example was non-sense? Well I knew that which is why I re-wrote in a way that was actually inteligible and factually correct. If you disagree that's fine but that can only be for one of a few reasons, either you did not understand it or you just don't like the reality of your arguement.
----- The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
I've been playing Lord Of The Rings Online on and off for sometime. I must have spent no more then 20$ at the most over x amount of years. I do buy the exp packs. I like the way it's done in this game.
Comments
I agree that the line between trial and F2P may be thin but it is still there. The difference between WoW and F2P titles is that WoW is still based on revenue from regular monthly subscriptions which isn't a case of F2P games.
AoC, LOTRO or STO are all same F2P model, just different implementation.
Ah, famous "google it" argument...or rather lack of...
All P2W games are designed around monetizing game mechanics, and this is the one and only underlying design that governs all aspects of the game. This means that all P2W games are the same when discussing the business model.
A P2W game with multiple payment options doesn't make it different from any other P2W game.
For me it's ok, then implementations, not models. I just tried to point out, that these differencies (in implementation
) connects with the 'cost' of the game in question, basically that's what defines how expensive the game will be, for the user.
User is a key factor too, if he's willing to pay a lot, then any game will be expensive for him, regardless of the implemetation settings
I am not sure what you are trying to say...
User is still defining factor, cash shop is the limiting. Some cash shops will allow to spend more if you wish so?
It has already happend to me, and a majority of MMO players. Research has shown that a MAJORITY of MMO players do NOT pay. The "whales", a small percentage of the players, are footing the bill and I am 100% fine with it.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27581/Study_US_Gamers_Spent_38_Billion_On_MMOs_in_2009.php
And I quote
"the rest, around 25 million (out of 45M) gamers, play MMOs without spending any money."
I agree -- in most FTP games I end up spending about $50 per month to play when I am playing. Subscription games are much cheaper. The other issue is a lot of FTP games have you WANTING to spend even more -- There are a lot of people who spend $200, $500, even $1,000+ per month to beat you. Worst are the games with contests -- be the first to do X -- non-big spenders need not apply. I actually quit one game that I had started which had a top 5 contest that I was about to get 4th place in but ended up 6th because 2 people decided to spend over $1,000 right before the end just to get ahead of me for a $200 payout. Note in this game I had only spent $40 and was probably the lowest spender with any chance whatsoever. I was even in a conversation with one of those people. He apologized but said he had to do it -- yeah.
Then you might have a wrong idea of addiction, addiction is caused by the product, not by the consumer, that is why they are usualy taken as being "bad".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction
Thinking all f2p model are awsome and are all but adictive is quiet ridiculous honestly, most of modern mmo have pushed the addictive factor to no end f2p or sub model is honestly to put in the same bag at this point, not being aware or straight up denying this is just strange honestly.
Actually that would be wrong. According to the most recent neurbiology studies and evolutionary studies in adicitno, an "addiction" is the result of receptor disregulation.
Also most people will not become addicted to any one substance. Cocaine and heroine only have approximately a 20% addiction rate, marijuana 4%, Alcohol has a near 100% rate because it can act upon approximately 8 different receptors.
So to clarify it is only an addiction if a receptor is disregulating, and in hard drugs only 20% or less will have a receptor disregulating. The rest is an abuse, which is still damaging but is not an addiction.
Therefore the product does not cause an addiction in most people unless there is allready a potential for a disregulation (which in that case the product did cause it), or the receptor is allready disregulating (the product did not cause it).
MMO"s would be an abuse, not an addiction. There is no MMO receptor. And, before people say you can be addicted to anything, no you can't. You can abuse anything but an addiction needs a disregulated receptor. And no you cannot, according again to neurobiology studies, become addicted to your own endorphines. Adrenaline junkes may be an abuse, but is not a disregulation.
People that are not involved in addiction research or up to current standards should not discuss what it is/is not or is caused by. It's just a spread of ignorance
Erm no.
Addiction is a state, there is no implication about a cause.
And yet it is you bringing up DSM and neurobiology...you could not ridicule yourself more.
Pseudo-sciences are pseudo-science, no serious business there.
Neurobiology is not a pseudoscience. The DSM is not a science, it is a collection of the current methods and diagnostic criteria.
Receptors, neurotransmitters and there effects are both measurable and observable.
As I said unless you are in the field and up to date, discussing 20 year old out of date theories on boards is pointless.
There is no one set of "F2P" models. Every company, every game has their own ideal and description of what "F2P" actually means. No argument can cover them all. And really, it boils down to what each person defines as a good deal vs not.
F2P is fine if you play casually. Not in terms of the amount of time played but in terms of competitiveness. I you are too competitive and you just have to win, either in PvP or in gearing up for PvE then you may have a difficult time with F2P. But if you can just play the game and let it come at you at its natural progesssion for what ever amount of effort you choose to put in then you can easily get away with never paying a cent and simply enjoy the game for what it offers for free.
All die, so die well.
The payment model doesn't change culture when it comes to leisure and entertainment - culture changes the payment model. For example, with internet access, consumers didn't switch from hourly payments to monthly fees because the ISPs dictated it. The ISPs switched to monthly because consumers were already showing a preference for monthly fees in other entertainment and luxury channels such as cable TV and cellphones.
The issue you present in the second sentence is an interesting one. Most of today's MMOs are not designed or managed to foster or maintain communities. There is no way for people to create their own groups or social units. Other than a chat channel, there is no way for like-minded players to find each other, congregate, and interact. This could be entirely because it's not what today's players want, so devoting resources to it would be a waste. It could also be because devs believe in some 'One Big Happy Family' mentality where everyone suddenly shows complete patience, tolerance, and love for people of all ages, creeds, religions, colors and degrees of obnoxious.
Either way, having invested 15 or 150 dollars into a game doesn't change any of that. The money invested doesn't create the ties, it's what you've accumulated in the game world, which can be just as much social bonds as it is epics, probably moreso.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Gdemami, the equation is actualy a bit more complicated then that. In the above example, your FTP model would be substantialy LESS proffitable then the sub model.
Remember each USER is a COST center to the company (bandwidth, storage, CPU, customer service, etc). Each user will cost the publisher, on average, a certain amount per month...depending upon the level of service provided.
- Under the subscription based model, the minimum amount of revenue per month is FIXED. If you are charging a $15 per month subscription and it COSTS you $5 per month to support each user then you can predict a $10 per month operating proffit per user.
- Under the F2P model, your gross revenue per user is VARIABLE. Some users might provide no revenue, i.e. they spend 0 that month (meaning your are losing money on them, since you still have to pay thier support costs)...others might pay ALOT.
In order to determine how much larger an audience a F2P game needs in order to make the equivalent proffit as a subscription based game, you need to factor the support costs per user into the equation as well.
Using your example above.....and assuming the 2 games provide each user with the same quality of service... let's hypotheticaly call it $3 per month (and that's probably not accurate, but we're just dealing with hypotheticals here)
P2P 100K user @ $15 per month revenue & $3 per month costs = 1.2M proffit
F2P 300K user @ $5 per month revenue & $3 per month cost = 600K Proffit
In order to be equal in proffit our F2P game would actualy need 600K users....either that or it would need to find a way to substantialy cut the cost of providing services to it's users.
Actualy it's BOTH. There are times where consumer desires tend to drive business/payment models....other times where industries are trying to proactively PUSH consumer trends in a particular way. It's a pretty complicated give and take....Also trends can be largely dependant upon OTHER factors.
In the example you used, one of the big factors that led ISP's to switch from hourly charges to monthly was due to thier COSTS to carry bandwidth going down dramaticaly due to advances in technology and other factors. They COULD have offered monthly based fee's early on...but it would have been so prohibitively expensive that most customers would have been priced out of the market. Offering hourly rates was what allowed them to offer services within the price range that was affordable to people. Once thier costs went down dramaticaly, it started allowing them to offer monthly based plans that were in price ranges that most consumers could actualy afford. Without that, consumers could have wished for cheap, unlimited monthly internet all they wanted....would have been as effective as wishing for cheap tourist travel to the moon.
Receptors and neurotransmitters are surely measurable and observable. The problem comes when you start making implications based on those observations and try to explain human behavior.
Psychology or neuroscience may use scientific methods but produce non-scientific conclusions.
Therefore both are just pseudo-sciences and unless you understand the difference and what science is about, there is indeed no point in this discussion.
I was never pretending it isn't. I just illustrated strategy behind the model.
As long as your "points" go:
1) We talked about average revenue per user, that includes non-paying customers as well. So no "variables".
2) The costs do not scaling linear. What might be 3 USD per user at 100k player base can be 1.2 USD per user at 300k player base.
Then they are morons. Who is worse, the moron or the person who takes advantage of the moron?
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
DDO is really a B2P game as to access everything one WILL have to pay for points unless spend a god awful amount in farming favor.
That it was done when it was technologically and financially feasible is a given. You just agreed that the change make for a more palatable price for the consumer, so I'm not seeing how that's an example of the ISPs trying to push them into a plan they otherwise weren't already predisposed to finding palatable. In your example, the business model was changed to fit the consumer desire, not the other way around.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
On number 2 that's generaly NOT true for OPERATING costs. The scale IS pretty linear once you get beyond a certain, pretty minimal, threshold. You can't really cut costs much there without cutting service. Depending upon how much you have to scale up, you're costs can actualy go up per user as with larger operations there tends to be levels of inefficiency and indirection built into the overhead.
Where you get some real cost savings in scaling is on the Development side. It costs you as much to write 1 piece of code that 10 people will use as 100,000, etc. However, Development costs are generaly placed into a seperate bucket....since the vast majority of them come up front before you earn a single $ back in revenue. Most organizations I know don't factor them into Operating costs, they treat them as Debt that has to be repaid. Ongoing development is generaly factored into Overhead, along with things like Finance, Sales & Marketing, HR, etc. Those things can be pretty fungible, but your Operating Costs are pretty much fixed per user once you get any amount of volume whatsoever. Things like hardware/hosting, technical operations staff. Most companies also tend to put Customer Service under that umbrella, precisely because it scales directly with users as well. Those all scale linearly.
So, what you are saying (aside from repeating yourself) is that your example was non-sense? Well I knew that which is why I re-wrote in a way that was actually inteligible and factually correct. If you disagree that's fine but that can only be for one of a few reasons, either you did not understand it or you just don't like the reality of your arguement.
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
I've been playing Lord Of The Rings Online on and off for sometime. I must have spent no more then 20$ at the most over x amount of years. I do buy the exp packs. I like the way it's done in this game.