Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
If you think that some new business model is going to displace old ones, then you have to ask, how will that new model get gamers to pay more than they're paying now? Because if it means that gamers pay less rather than more, then publishers will stick with previous business models.
If you think that some new business model is going to displace old ones, then you have to ask, how will that new model get gamers to pay more than they're paying now? Because if it means that gamers pay less rather than more, then publishers will stick with previous business models.
Excellent observation. Yeah something we should all think about.
F2P will never collapse, there are multiple layers of what is F2P monetization, and the fact we've seen hyper aggressive models does not defeat the other models, which all of them have been enough to sustain MMOs that would otherwise been dead on the water by now.
The Sub model is the one that pretty much already collapsed, literally no new title gets away with a sub and we can count with one hand the successful popular titles that endured a sub to play.
B2P does not sustain long-term, even with expansions that in an MMO take a while to create and require a meh segregation of playerbase.
F2P will never collapse, there are multiple layers of what is F2P monetization, and the fact we've seen hyper aggressive models does not defeat the other models, which all of them have been enough to sustain MMOs that would otherwise been dead on the water by now.
The Sub model is the one that pretty much already collapsed, literally no new title gets away with a sub and we can count with one hand the successful popular titles that endured a sub to play.
B2P does not sustain long-term, even with expansions that in an MMO take a while to create and require a meh segregation of playerbase.
Games will follow other content. Netflix and Hulu and Disney model. Gamepass and games as a service is the future
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
It's a different mindset for a whole new generation of gamers.
The OG MMO gamers of 20 years ago wanted to buy a game, pay a sub and get everything that game had to offer.
The new generation wants to try a game for free to see if they like it and if they do, put money onto it... or their parents' money. ?
On paper, both have their pros and cons. In reality, the new model of F2P with a cash shop seems to push developers to create hollow games with no hope for longevity. Get the game out, get as much money as possible as fast as possible and put the game on life support for the handful of diehards.
Well as an OG MMO gamer the reason I prefer subs is the business model is fair in that everyone pays the same amount, and subs don't manipulate people with addictive gambling mechanics that prey on people susceptible to that sort of thing. Studies have shown that the people laying out the most cash for FTP games are not the people that can most afford it. They are the people most easily manipulated. That makes the business model supremely unethical, and in my opinion borderline criminal. I refuse to be any part of it. That's one of the reasons why I didn't play those games. I also refuse to be some game's whale to pay for some freeloader's time in the game. I also refuse to be the freeloader because I believe in supporting game developers who work so hard to make games. Only conscionable choice I have left is to not play. Hopefully, the whole industry won't go FTP or I'll be done with gaming.
It's a different mindset for a whole new generation of gamers.
The OG MMO gamers of 20 years ago wanted to buy a game, pay a sub and get everything that game had to offer.
The new generation wants to try a game for free to see if they like it and if they do, put money onto it... or their parents' money. ?
On paper, both have their pros and cons. In reality, the new model of F2P with a cash shop seems to push developers to create hollow games with no hope for longevity. Get the game out, get as much money as possible as fast as possible and put the game on life support for the handful of diehards.
The new generation wants to try a game for free.
Could have stopped right there as far as I can see. The vast majority will never pay a cent.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I'm a sub.player now. I just got sick of all the restrictions on f2p.
So what games does that translate to exactly. WOW, FFXIV, EVE, and...Embers Adrift?
Or are you counting those with optional subs for specific content such as unlimited storage or other perks such as ESO, GW2, BDO, Lost Ark?
How about New World, $20 gets you everything, for now at least. Doubtful they won't amp up the monetization some time in the future.
Well, I am a sub/B2P myself and the B2P has to have a good cash shop. BDO is like LA, as you go up the ranks the need to spend on gear becomes more and more in your face. NW shows its Western roots, that's one of the reasons I could see them turning it round; if it already had a BDO style cash shop, I could not see how they possibly could.
It's only dead for butthole publishers who crap all over their player base. F2P is a solid concept, it allows peoples to drift around in multiple game worlds and rewarding the worlds they find entertaining with a purchase. The Narrah or what ever seems like he is defining the reason why he can't put a game out f2p, because those type of developers hide crap behind 50 dollars and prey on those pre-order people who must have it. F2P is here to stay , deal with it ! xD
Free to Play simply means that the game is not behind a paywall. It is a marketing (not monetization) approach to get more players into your game, at a lower (marketing) cost because you don't need to convince people to pay upfront.
The monetization that is associated with F2P (because they try to take your money after you have started playing the game) is very broad. It ranges from subscriptions, to cash shops, to loot boxes, to season passes, etc. These different approaches all exist separate from the P2P/B2P/F2P marketing approach.
Now, there is a new adaptation being added, P2E. Play to (/and) Earn is a marketing approach that pays players (in the form of items/tokens) to play the game. This is an extension of the 'players are content' approach that allows for better marketing spend to keep/make the game active. This is a more efficient way to use marketing money to generate player activity within a game. This is innovative in that it can be done in addition to the P2P/B2P/F2P approach. This is a more efficient way to add paid marketing to an existing product.
This is how the marketing (remember these are marketing methods) of games will continue to evolve. New ways will be found to ADD layers of different types of marketing that are more efficient, and allow better targeting of the results.
It's a different mindset for a whole new generation of gamers.
The OG MMO gamers of 20 years ago wanted to buy a game, pay a sub and get everything that game had to offer.
The new generation wants to try a game for free to see if they like it and if they do, put money onto it... or their parents' money. ?
On paper, both have their pros and cons. In reality, the new model of F2P with a cash shop seems to push developers to create hollow games with no hope for longevity. Get the game out, get as much money as possible as fast as possible and put the game on life support for the handful of diehards.
The new generation wants to try a game for free.
Could have stopped right there as far as I can see. The vast majority will never pay a cent.
It's one thing to want to try a game for free but be willing to pay to continue if you like it. It's quite another to be never willing to pay a cent whether you like the game or not. The former type of players can be quite profitable to publishers. The latter will ultimately find themselves shunted off into pay to win games where they can serve as content for the whales to crush.
Part of the reason why younger players are more likely expect free trials is that free trials are far more common now. Decades ago when cartridges were expensive, relatively few homes had a PC (as opposed to a much cheaper game console), and hardly anyone had Internet access, free trials were mostly impractical. Today, it's cheap and easy to distribute a free trial, and if a game doesn't have a free trial, it's only because the publisher doesn't want it to.
Free to Play simply means that the game is not behind a paywall. It is a marketing (not monetization) approach to get more players into your game, at a lower (marketing) cost because you don't need to convince people to pay upfront.
The monetization that is associated with F2P (because they try to take your money after you have started playing the game) is very broad. It ranges from subscriptions, to cash shops, to loot boxes, to season passes, etc. These different approaches all exist separate from the P2P/B2P/F2P marketing approach.
Now, there is a new adaptation being added, P2E. Play to (/and) Earn is a marketing approach that pays players (in the form of items/tokens) to play the game. This is an extension of the 'players are content' approach that allows for better marketing spend to keep/make the game active. This is a more efficient way to use marketing money to generate player activity within a game. This is innovative in that it can be done in addition to the P2P/B2P/F2P approach. This is a more efficient way to add paid marketing to an existing product.
This is how the marketing (remember these are marketing methods) of games will continue to evolve. New ways will be found to ADD layers of different types of marketing that are more efficient, and allow better targeting of the results.
Do not forget that F2P adds much pain on both the developer and PAYING customer side for MMORPGs.
For a large release you might have a million players trying to login. This stresses the developer to support the population but also causes much pain for paying customers who cannot login, are in 8 hour queues, get dropped from game, deal with crazy lag, get split from friends.
Much of that does not exist for non mmo games. I am sticking to my belief that the Gamepasses of the world are the future for MMORPGs.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
why would a person who has never worked on a f2p game in his life be narrating how f2p is doomed etc ?
lol
like get an interview or a article from someone who actually knows wtf f2p even means first
Only thing I would probably say to that is, this guy was working at bioware when SWTOR went f2p. He probably wasn't involved but in his position he probably had at least some direct knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes.
I know what model I prefer. Subscription models or in the least freemium models interest me the most. I hate cash shops and gacha even though I play them often.
But play and earn is still just an experiment to me. I know that some games are popular, but the thing is, you can't be as greedy in a play and earn environment or else you actually will collapse. Months before axie got hacked they were learning this first hand.
The hack was more of an excuse they could point to for a looking failure they now get to correct.
There are some awesome play and earn games I look forward to trying and a a couple on the market that have promise but it's not going to hit the mainstream soon. And even then it kind of falls into a specific free to play category.
Please stop, I see the neat little sidestep you are trying to do here.
It is play "to" earn; "and" is clearly not the correct rejoinder.
No use trying to make a shitty concept sound less offensive than it actually is.
If you are going to support the dark side at least own fully up to it.
There's a difference. I recommend you learn it.
What's next, Free "and" play?
Lulz, your agenda is obvious, to put lipstick on a pig, but please, share a few released examples of this free "and" earn concept in the MMORPG space.
Bet you can't.
i still remember "TRULY" free , dunno if it was Aion , Rift , Tera or what game was that advertise as "Truly free" but that didnt last lol
Whilst I don't think free 2 play is going anywhere, I do think it'll lose market share over the coming decade, and with good reason.
First, let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of F2P games FAIL!!! By that, I mean that they don't make enough money to cover the costs of development, let alone make a profit. We get market reports on this nearly every year.
Second, F2P is inherantly unethical. the game isn't free to play, only part of the game is free. The true cost of the whole game is obscured from the consumer, and forever changing. When something is unethical, it eventually gets regulated to make it more ethical, and those sorts of regulations will kill off a large chunk of the market.
Third, F2P encourages bad design decisions. If the base game is free, then the stuff in the cash shop needs to be better than the free stuff, otherwise most people won't buy anything. This means pay2win, or simply better looking stuff, or building in inconvenience that can only be overcome by paying money. This inevitably drives away players.
----------------------
Beyond that, as I've said in the past, studios need to match their business model with the game they are building. That's the part that has been missing in recent years. Certain business models suit specific types of games.
1) Games focused on community
If you want a game to have a great community, it means building around the idea of retention. You cannot form social bonds without repeated contact over time, so if you aren't retaining customers then that community will never form.
This is really the "virtual world" design philosophy. Build a game worth spending months or years in, build a game where playing with others is worth doing.
If you manage to build a game like this, then subscription-only is the best business model. Your players are going to be with u long term, so you'll get the money out of them eventually. A subscription will act as a gatekeeper, keeping out some of the people who will be a detriment to your community. A sub feels "fair", and fairness between players is an essential part of a community.
Sadly, nobody builds games like this anymore........
2) Games focused on churn
Somes devs don't want to build long-term games. It's very difficult to do, and it locks your devs into a single game for years which isn't necessarily appealing.
But, building a game that you play for a month or two? Well, we've been doing that since games began. These are games designed for the churn - a constant influx and outflow of players as players start the game, complete it and quit.
B2P is the best business model for this type of game. You get the full amount of money upfront, the gamer gets the full game to play, and it doesn't cost the studio too much in terms of servers etc because each player is only hanging around for a short amount of time.
Given the drift towards single player design, this covers the majority of themepark mmos.
3) Games focused on competition
Some games, mainly PvP games, are focused around the idea of competition. In order to get the best competition possible, you need as many players as possible. By having the largest possible player pool, you can achieve better and quicker matchmaking, resulting in a better player experience.
Free 2 Play is thus the best business model, but specifically a "good" F2P model. Make the majority of the game completely free and you'll attract the largest possible audience. If you've got a large audience, then you only need to convert a small percentage in order to make a profit.
However, you need to make sure your cash shop is small and cheap. If it starts to get predatory or expensive, you'll drive players away and begin a downwards spiral.
This is really for PvP focused games, but I don't think I've seen an MMORPG use this model effectively. Non-MMOs like LoL have made this work really well.
4) Games focused on wasting time
I hate this sort of game, but there are more and more games that are designed to do nothing but waste your time. They don't teach you anything, they don't engage you mentally, they don't challenge you or delight you. They are utterly pointless, but if you've got a 20minute bus ride then they can be marginally better than staring out of the window.
Play 2 Earn is the best model here. Not many are willing to waste money on a time-wasting game, but if the game will pay you to play it then it'll encourage more to play, and for longer.
To be clear, I'm talking about games that actually pay you to play. You actually earn money for the actions you take. This business model is in it's infancy, and is very different from the crypto / nft scams out there.
5) Games that are too bad to succeed any other way
Sometimes, a game just sucks. Sometimes that's deliberate, sometimes its an accident, but it happens. In the past, these games would just outright fail and the studios would shutter or move on to their next game.
"Bad" Free 2 Play or "Play and invest" are your business models of choice for such bad games.
By bad F2P, I mean predatory design and sales techniques designed to coax the most amount of money in the shortest amount of time out of players. In other words, appealing to whales and relying on exploiting addictions. This will allow the studio to get the most amount of money they can out of their bad game, preferable to outright failure.
"Play and invest" is what is usually called "Play 2 Earn" by most. But, you don't earn money at all. You have to invest money first, then hope someone later will pay you more money for what you bought. This locks these suckers into a game, despite it being guaranteed to fail, and the studio doesn't care whether you make money or not, they just need to make the player believe in their false hopes.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
why would a person who has never worked on a f2p game in his life be narrating how f2p is doomed etc ?
lol
like get an interview or a article from someone who actually knows wtf f2p even means first
Only thing I would probably say to that is, this guy was working at bioware when SWTOR went f2p. He probably wasn't involved but in his position he probably had at least some direct knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes.
I know what model I prefer. Subscription models or in the least freemium models interest me the most. I hate cash shops and gacha even though I play them often.
But play and earn is still just an experiment to me. I know that some games are popular, but the thing is, you can't be as greedy in a play and earn environment or else you actually will collapse. Months before axie got hacked they were learning this first hand.
The hack was more of an excuse they could point to for a looking failure they now get to correct.
There are some awesome play and earn games I look forward to trying and a a couple on the market that have promise but it's not going to hit the mainstream soon. And even then it kind of falls into a specific free to play category.
Please stop, I see the neat little sidestep you are trying to do here.
It is play "to" earn; "and" is clearly not the correct rejoinder.
No use trying to make a shitty concept sound less offensive than it actually is.
If you are going to support the dark side at least own fully up to it.
There's a difference. I recommend you learn it.
What's next, Free "and" play?
Lulz, your agenda is obvious, to put lipstick on a pig, but please, share a few released examples of this free "and" earn concept in the MMORPG space.
Bet you can't.
i still remember "TRULY" free , dunno if it was Aion , Rift , Tera or what game was that advertise as "Truly free" but that didnt last lol
No for profit company has or ever will put out a truly free game. Many have a f2p mode that some may use to play the game at no cost, but the game must ultimately be sufficiently profitable overall or it will be discontinued.
I think with so many cheap games coming out F2P is going to stick around, i personally prefer subscription or buy to play, as i have found the players better as they have an investment in there time, but with all the F2P why would most people go to sub games or Buy to play, even if they spend more on the game in the market. And sadly many F2P are pay to win
Free to Play simply means that the game is not behind a paywall. It is a marketing (not monetization) approach to get more players into your game, at a lower (marketing) cost because you don't need to convince people to pay upfront.
The monetization that is associated with F2P (because they try to take your money after you have started playing the game) is very broad. It ranges from subscriptions, to cash shops, to loot boxes, to season passes, etc. These different approaches all exist separate from the P2P/B2P/F2P marketing approach.
Now, there is a new adaptation being added, P2E. Play to (/and) Earn is a marketing approach that pays players (in the form of items/tokens) to play the game. This is an extension of the 'players are content' approach that allows for better marketing spend to keep/make the game active. This is a more efficient way to use marketing money to generate player activity within a game. This is innovative in that it can be done in addition to the P2P/B2P/F2P approach. This is a more efficient way to add paid marketing to an existing product.
This is how the marketing (remember these are marketing methods) of games will continue to evolve. New ways will be found to ADD layers of different types of marketing that are more efficient, and allow better targeting of the results.
Do not forget that F2P adds much pain on both the developer and PAYING customer side for MMORPGs.
For a large release you might have a million players trying to login. This stresses the developer to support the population but also causes much pain for paying customers who cannot login, are in 8 hour queues, get dropped from game, deal with crazy lag, get split from friends.
Much of that does not exist for non mmo games. I am sticking to my belief that the Gamepasses of the world are the future for MMORPGs.
This is why you often see a tiered P2P launch (via paid bundles with access to beta) even for F2P games. The initial launch spike of any new (and popular) game can be 5-10x what your player base will be after 30 days. This is both a pro and con. Yes, you can get a lot of users very cheaply, but getting them all at one time isnt what you necessarily want.
I don't think the model is doomed entirely. It's especially successful with several very popular games that may or may not be relying on the player's access to their mom's credit card.
But I don't see it as being able to prop up the more ambitious projects like New World. Ever buy-to-play won't be enough. This might be an overall problem with the gaming industry, since the cost of development is increasing with demands on graphics and gameplay. The return needed for these newer games to be considered successful is becoming immense, and I wonder how many titles like New World the industry can support on cosmetics shops.
I wish I had an answer for this. I think if World of Warcraft had been developed in recent years, it would be considered a failure on launch for 'only' getting thousands of subscribers. Competitive arena/battle royale/MOBA games are much cheaper and met with much lower expectations, so the f2p model is an obvious choice. Games like Albion have forgone the high-end graphics and ambitious gameplay mechanics altogether. But a game like New World could really only be made with some intense investment funding.
"Free to play" is such a broad collection of different business models that it's hard to imagine that they'll all go away without being replaced by something else that could also be plausibly called "free to play".
Technically "Free to Play" isn't a monetization model, it is a marketing model (both are business models). It is an approach to get players (potential customers) into the system, so that there is the potential to convert them to either added value, or paying customers.
P.S. P2E/P&E is also a marketing model (not monetization model). It can be used in addition too both F2P and more traditional paid marketing. It can provide a lower cost than more traditional paid marketing, while still providing the same high level of controls. F2P is cheaper, but less controlled/responsive. With F2P you may get too many players at undesirable moments (but cheaply), whereas with P2E you pay a bit more, but can drive the traffic at the times you need it.
Comments
Or are you counting those with optional subs for specific content such as unlimited storage or other perks such as ESO, GW2, BDO, Lost Ark?
How about New World, $20 gets you everything, for now at least. Doubtful they won't amp up the monetization some time in the future.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
https://biturl.top/rU7bY3
Beyond the shadows there's always light
The Sub model is the one that pretty much already collapsed, literally no new title gets away with a sub and we can count with one hand the successful popular titles that endured a sub to play.
B2P does not sustain long-term, even with expansions that in an MMO take a while to create and require a meh segregation of playerbase.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The OG MMO gamers of 20 years ago wanted to buy a game, pay a sub and get everything that game had to offer.
The new generation wants to try a game for free to see if they like it and if they do, put money onto it... or their parents' money. ?
On paper, both have their pros and cons. In reality, the new model of F2P with a cash shop seems to push developers to create hollow games with no hope for longevity. Get the game out, get as much money as possible as fast as possible and put the game on life support for the handful of diehards.
Could have stopped right there as far as I can see. The vast majority will never pay a cent.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Free to Play simply means that the game is not behind a paywall. It is a marketing (not monetization) approach to get more players into your game, at a lower (marketing) cost because you don't need to convince people to pay upfront.
The monetization that is associated with F2P (because they try to take your money after you have started playing the game) is very broad. It ranges from subscriptions, to cash shops, to loot boxes, to season passes, etc. These different approaches all exist separate from the P2P/B2P/F2P marketing approach.
Now, there is a new adaptation being added, P2E. Play to (/and) Earn is a marketing approach that pays players (in the form of items/tokens) to play the game. This is an extension of the 'players are content' approach that allows for better marketing spend to keep/make the game active. This is a more efficient way to use marketing money to generate player activity within a game. This is innovative in that it can be done in addition to the P2P/B2P/F2P approach. This is a more efficient way to add paid marketing to an existing product.
This is how the marketing (remember these are marketing methods) of games will continue to evolve. New ways will be found to ADD layers of different types of marketing that are more efficient, and allow better targeting of the results.
Part of the reason why younger players are more likely expect free trials is that free trials are far more common now. Decades ago when cartridges were expensive, relatively few homes had a PC (as opposed to a much cheaper game console), and hardly anyone had Internet access, free trials were mostly impractical. Today, it's cheap and easy to distribute a free trial, and if a game doesn't have a free trial, it's only because the publisher doesn't want it to.
For a large release you might have a million players trying to login. This stresses the developer to support the population but also causes much pain for paying customers who cannot login, are in 8 hour queues, get dropped from game, deal with crazy lag, get split from friends.
Much of that does not exist for non mmo games. I am sticking to my belief that the Gamepasses of the world are the future for MMORPGs.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
i still remember "TRULY" free , dunno if it was Aion , Rift , Tera or what game was that advertise as "Truly free" but that didnt last lol
No for profit company has or ever will put out a truly free game. Many have a f2p mode that some may use to play the game at no cost, but the game must ultimately be sufficiently profitable overall or it will be discontinued.
But I don't see it as being able to prop up the more ambitious projects like New World. Ever buy-to-play won't be enough. This might be an overall problem with the gaming industry, since the cost of development is increasing with demands on graphics and gameplay. The return needed for these newer games to be considered successful is becoming immense, and I wonder how many titles like New World the industry can support on cosmetics shops.
I wish I had an answer for this. I think if World of Warcraft had been developed in recent years, it would be considered a failure on launch for 'only' getting thousands of subscribers. Competitive arena/battle royale/MOBA games are much cheaper and met with much lower expectations, so the f2p model is an obvious choice. Games like Albion have forgone the high-end graphics and ambitious gameplay mechanics altogether. But a game like New World could really only be made with some intense investment funding.
P.S. P2E/P&E is also a marketing model (not monetization model). It can be used in addition too both F2P and more traditional paid marketing. It can provide a lower cost than more traditional paid marketing, while still providing the same high level of controls. F2P is cheaper, but less controlled/responsive. With F2P you may get too many players at undesirable moments (but cheaply), whereas with P2E you pay a bit more, but can drive the traffic at the times you need it.