Life some restrictions for F2P?

[hadoken]

They're actually asking for $2000 to purchase their report on the MMO industry?

 

Good lord, and I thought some F2P schemes were bad.

[Ratajack]

I would like to add the following, because it seems a few folks are bent on spreading false or misleading information as truth.

 

100 players subscribed/15 each = 1500

100 F2P players/70 players that pay nothing/30 players that pay 100 = 3000

 

This was demonstrated in more than one study....F2P games depend on whales...a small portion of the F2P population that will past vast amounts of money in game. That can be anywhere from 5 percent up to 30 percent.

 

The studies concluded, on average, that 30 out of 100 F2P players will generate twice as much as 100 subscribed players...that means those 30 players are laying out almost 7 times as much as subscribers in a 30 day period.

 

This is one the reasons why F2P games dominate the industry in total revenue, profits and players.

 

Now, in all fairness I have to note that Bioware mentioned that subscribed players were making the lions share of CM purchases in this game...so this game COULD break the mold, so to speak.

 

Or...it could speak to the weakness of the F2P model here.

 

This information has been posted in this forum time and time again, with the relevant studies linked. Yet some folks are still clinging to the fantasy that there is still a real market for subs (represents a fraction of the market now) and that Subs pay more than Freeps.

 

Both are completely foolish self serving contentions IMO. The reality is that the market has changed, and that is that.

 

It is unlikely we will ever return to the days when the sub was the king. Now it is the freeps.

 

I have a question. I have never played LoL or WoT. Do either of them even have a subscription option? Does ANY F2P MOBA have a subscription option? Are they only F2P games with something similar to the CM?

 

 

If there is no subscription option for those games, then of course the only a few players who spend money on the "CM" are F2P players since nobody can subscribe. I'm sure those few players who spend money on the "CM" spend a fair amount, each. However, this is not a fair comparison to SWTOR which has an option to subscribe if the games to which you point do not have a subscription option, as well.

 

As you have admitted, BW has said that the vast majority of CM sales are from SUBSCRIBERS, not F2P or preferred (freeloaders). I theorize that those players who subscribe and spend a good amount on the CM are the same ones who would be the "few who spend fair amounts of money on the in game market of the F2P MOBA's". I also theorize that if those F2P MOBA's had a subscription option, that you would find those same few people subscribing and spending their money on the in game market, while the F2P (freeloaders) spent very little, if any, money to support the game.

 

 

In do not think the SWTOR "breaks the mold" with regards to F2P but rather shows that those willing to spend money will spend a portion of that money to subscribe if given the option. I think this game also shows that those who choose to freeload will do so in any game model, given the option.

[LordArtemis]

They're actually asking for $2000 to purchase their report on the MMO industry?

 

Good lord, and I thought some F2P schemes were bad.

 

Yes, Im sorry, I cant share all of the information in the study for obvious reasons. We purchase their studies on a regular basis.

 

But you can certainly get the gist from the overview. One piece of good news...WoW profits are back up, and nothing to sneeze at either.

 

The study makes the argument that the market is slowly moving toward a hybrid model, in an attempt to capture alternative markets. This game demonstrates, IMO, how a hybrid model can be beneficial to a product.

 

But I would note a disclaimer...SWTOR is not mentioned in the study.

[Lotharofxev]

And yes, F2P games are CLEARLY beating WoW in leaps and bounds, players, revenue and profits.

 

So it's WoW vs the entire F2P market?

 

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/396912-top-mmos-by-revenue/

 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-04-10-world-of-tanks-leads-the-way-in-average-revenue-per-user

 

Please note - in a subscription based game (WoW) you automatically have an ARPU that squashes any FTP.

 

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/wow-was-the-top-subscription-mmo-in-2013-star-wars/1100-6421191/

 

Lineage is considered a subscription based game in the above link.

 

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/396912-top-mmos-by-revenue/

 

World of tanks with 369 million. Wow w/ 728. LoL w/ 896. as we've noted before, the above link does not have SWTOR, which has multiple sources indicating this game generated over 150 million in 2013 and 2014.

 

If, as other posters have suggested, it's actually subscribers buying Cartel Packs, then honestly, I see no reason for the parent company to switch their model.

[hadoken]

If, as other posters have suggested, it's actually subscribers buying Cartel Packs, then honestly, I see no reason for the parent company to switch their model.

 

BioWare actually said that themselves.

[LordArtemis]

Also, I would point out there are other ways to view the data, in fairness.

 

MMOBomb had a pretty good opinion piece on the study.

 

http://www.mmobomb.com/news/free-play-mmo-revenue-triples-subscription-based-revenue-2014/

 

As always, I encourage folks to do their own research and draw their own conclusions, but I choose to stick to mine.

[Lotharofxev]

Yes, they quote the "data" that requires $2,000 to view.

 

MOBA =/= MMORPG

 

And, with that figure, it also proves that WoW is the devil.

 

No bias there.

[Ratajack]

Also, I would point out there are other ways to view the data, in fairness.

 

MMOBomb had a pretty good opinion piece on the study.

 

http://www.mmobomb.com/news/free-play-mmo-revenue-triples-subscription-based-revenue-2014/

 

As always, I encourage folks to do their own research and draw their own conclusions, but I choose to stick to mine.

 

Partial data is just that. Partial data, neither complete nor impartial.

[LordArtemis]

Partial data is just that. Partial data, neither complete nor impartial.

 

Oh come on now. It's easy to dismiss facts by saying they are not impartial. That is a silly contention.

 

The information is reported from the companies themselves, and Superdata is well respected in the industry.

Here is a good study synopses from 2013, cited by major game reporting sites all over the net.

 

You have known me for quite some time Ratajack...have you ever known me to post false or biased information?

[hadoken]

Partial data is just that. Partial data, neither complete nor impartial.

 

Yea you have to be incredibly careful with reviewing what companies provide as to their numbers, as they all love to play games and hide things. I saw this myself when I was in the industry, what was reported as the subscription rate for the game I worked on vs reality was so far different it was amazing.

[LordArtemis]

Yea you have to be incredibly careful with reviewing what companies provide as to their numbers, as they all love to play games and hide things. I saw this myself when I was in the industry, what was reported as the subscription rate for the game I worked on vs reality was so far different it was amazing.

 

Actually, I cant really argue against this point. If this is what you meant Ratajack and hadoken, then I digress. We do rely on the accuracy of data released by companies, and they certainly could fudge some or all of the data.

 

So I concede that the information out there could be inaccurate for that reason. I have to concede that.

[Ratajack]

Oh come on now. It's easy to dismiss facts by saying they are not impartial. That is a silly contention.

 

The information is reported from the companies themselves, and Superdata is well respected in the industry.

Here is a good study synopses from 2013, cited by major game reporting sites all over the net.

 

You have known me for quite some time Ratajack...have you ever known me to post false or biased information?

 

No. However, you have also been pretty good about backing up your claims with links to COMPLETE data.

 

Often, there is a reason when someone breaks their patterns. Would you care to explain why you broke your pattern this time?

[Lotharofxev]

Yea you have to be incredibly careful with reviewing what companies provide as to their numbers, as they all love to play games and hide things. I saw this myself when I was in the industry, what was reported as the subscription rate for the game I worked on vs reality was so far different it was amazing.

 

+ 1. So + 1. Characters = "users" = subscriptions. All accounts ever = players = subscribers.

 

Noseygamer is a website I was introduced to recently.

 

http://nosygamer.blogspot.com/

 

Scroll down a bit for MMORPG (not MOBA) user numbers.

 

At the end of the day, if subscribers are the ones buying Cartel crap, two things come to mind:

 

1) Why on earth would the parent company EVER change their model?

 

2) Why are we even having this conversation?

[LordArtemis]

No. However, you have also been pretty good about backing up your claims with links to COMPLETE data.

 

Often, there is a reason when someone breaks their patterns. Would you care to explain why you broke your pattern this time?

 

Fair enough.

 

In this case I actually cant provide the complete report, or a link to it in it's entirety. It is proprietary. I could get in big trouble for that.

 

I can point people to the site, or any other site that has received permission to collate the data for public release.

 

They should clear folks to post the data entirely when they release the full report for free in a few months.

 

As you probably know, I had the same problem in Dec of 2013 when I spoke about the current market data, and folks wanted to see the full report information. It wasn't until Massively posted most of it that folks gave me a pass. Until then I got the same kind of accusations thrown at me as I am getting now.

 

Of course now that information is common knowledge.

Edited October 27, 2014 by LordArtemis

[LordArtemis]

+ 1. So + 1. Characters = "users" = subscriptions. All accounts ever = players = subscribers.

 

Noseygamer is a website I was introduced to recently.

 

http://nosygamer.blogspot.com/

 

Scroll down a bit for MMORPG (not MOBA) user numbers.

 

At the end of the day, if subscribers are the ones buying Cartel crap, two things come to mind:

 

1) Why on earth would the parent company EVER change their model?

 

2) Why are we even having this conversation?

 

Thanks for the site link. I'm going to check it out.

 

Interesting to see SWTOR 2nd on that list.

[Ratajack]

Fair enough.

 

In this case I actually cant provide the complete report, or a link to it in it's entirety. It is proprietary. I could get in big trouble for that.

 

I can point people to the site, or any other site that has received permission to collate the data for public release.

 

They should clear folks to post the data entirely when they release the full report for free in a few months.

 

As you probably know, I had the same problem in Dec of 2013 when I spoke about the current market data, and folks wanted to see the full report information. It wasn't until Massively posted most of it that folks gave me a pass. Until then I got the same kind of accusations thrown at me as I am getting now.

 

Of course now that information is common knowledge.

 

Again, I ask, how much of that data which has not been cleared, stems from the difference in model types. A game with no subscription option that is only free 2 play with a cash shop is vastly different than a game with a subscription option, 2 free 2 play options (preferred and free to play) and a cash shop.

[LordArtemis]

Again, I ask, how much of that data which has not been cleared, stems from the difference in model types. A game with no subscription option that is only free 2 play with a cash shop is vastly different than a game with a subscription option, 2 free 2 play options (preferred and free to play) and a cash shop.

 

I think I understand the point you are making...MOBAs and MMOs are not the same, so the same rules do not apply.

 

I simply do not agree. MOBAs are a type of MMO IMO. When you are speaking of revenue ALL games that are online multiplayer games are in the same mix.

 

But aside from that, we are speaking to the industry F2P model. This game is VERY different from LoL and WoT because it uses a hybrid model.

 

And that DOES, IMO, differentiate it for certain considerations.

 

The desire to increase F2P player levels and also spending is not one of those considerations IMO.

 

The argument can be made that MOBAs draw more players because MOBAs are more popular than MMOs. But that still does not stand against the idea that there is a method to CONVERT MOBA players to MMO players, specifically for this game, and one way to do that is to make the game more appealing to those kind of folks in alternate markets.

Edited October 27, 2014 by LordArtemis

[Ratajack]

I think I understand the point you are making...MOBAs and MMOs are not the same, so the same rules do not apply.

 

I simply do not agree. MOBAs are a type of MMO IMO. When you are speaking of revenue ALL games that are online multiplayer games are in the same mix.

 

But aside from that, we are speaking to the industry F2P model. This game is VERY different from LoL and WoT because it uses a hybrid model.

 

And that DOES, IMO, differentiate it for certain considerations.

 

The desire to increase F2P player levels and also spending is not one of those considerations IMO.

 

This particular hybrid model has already proven, according to BW, that SUBSCRIBERS and NOT freeloaders. SUNSCRIBERS are the ones supporting this game. SUBSCRIBERS are the ones paying the subscription and also are the ones spending the most in the CM.

 

Since SUBSCRIBERS, and NOT freeloaders, are the ones who are spending the most in the CM, in addition to the subscriptions they already pay to maintain, what would lead any reasonable person to think that lessening the restrictions on freeloaders would bring more revenue into the game? The freeloaders have already proven their lack of desire to support this game. Yes, I include preferred in that generalization, as they are no longer subscribing and therefore no longer supporting the game, IMO. Giving them more for free isn't going to magically change their spending habits. In fact, I think the forums will simply be full of freeloaders demanding even more stuff for free.

 

If you give the freeloaders too much for free, eventually the subscribers will stop paying the subscription and simply put the extra money into the CM, if they even do that. We could end up with a F2P only game with the same people spending money in the in game market, supporting the game, while the same freeloaders continue to sponge off those who are actually supporting the game.

 

 

There is no need to lessen the restrictions on those who are not paying the subscription and are therefore freeloading. The freeloaders can cry foul and play the victim all they want, but they can play with no restrictions for the low, low cost of $15/month. That is cheaper than a pair of movie tickets, a week's worth of Starbuck's, a meal at almost any restaurant, etc. That is pretty cheap for a whole month's entertainment.

[Lotharofxev]

Since SUBSCRIBERS, and NOT freeloaders, are the ones who are spending the most in the CM, in addition to the subscriptions they already pay to maintain, what would lead any reasonable person to think that lessening the restrictions on freeloaders would bring more revenue into the game? The freeloaders have already proven their lack of desire to support this game. Yes, I include preferred in that generalization, as they are no longer subscribing and therefore no longer supporting the game, IMO. Giving them more for free isn't going to magically change their spending habits. In fact, I think the forums will simply be full of freeloaders demanding even more stuff for free.

 

/Done

[Jeweledleah]

lifting restrictions for f2p without adding any perks to subscription is not a good idea. however.... I do think that certain restrictions are punitive and hurt subscribers and free players alike.

 

for example - leveling speed. it should be the same for all. and you should be able to accept ALL quest rewards, that restriction on boxes has to go. I also think that more unlocks should be sold. in the same vein as operations/flashpoint GSF passes.

 

there's a reason why so many games are going f2p. becasue the same people who categorically refuse to spend money on subscription will cheerfully spend many times as much in microtransactions.

 

so they should add more unlocks, tradable unlocks. does this mean that someone will end up playing essentially for free? yes. but they already do anyways. encourage those that are willing to spend money, just don't like to be locked to subscription.. to spend money. as illogical as it sounds - people, too many people are just that illogical.

[Ratajack]

lifting restrictions for f2p without adding any perks to subscription is not a good idea. however.... I do think that certain restrictions are punitive and hurt subscribers and free players alike.

 

for example - leveling speed. it should be the same for all. and you should be able to accept ALL quest rewards, that restriction on boxes has to go. I also think that more unlocks should be sold. in the same vein as operations/flashpoint GSF passes.

 

there's a reason why so many games are going f2p. becasue the same people who categorically refuse to spend money on subscription will cheerfully spend many times as much in microtransactions.

 

so they should add more unlocks, tradable unlocks. does this mean that someone will end up playing essentially for free? yes. but they already do anyways. encourage those that are willing to spend money, just don't like to be locked to subscription.. to spend money. as illogical as it sounds - people, too many people are just that illogical.

 

I have yet to see any evidence that a HYBRID model such as this game will see any substantial revenue from those not subscribing.

 

Sure, in a strictly F2P game you will have some players who will spend money on micro transactions. IMO, those people are the same ones who would likely pay to subscribe, if that were an option.

 

I do not for one second believe that someone who is paying this game for free would be willing to spend a dime even if they lifted some of the restrictions.

 

How would you propose that they reward subscribers if they lift any of the current restrictions on F2P and preferred?

[LordArtemis]

This was my original list of suggested changes. Note the focus is adding more value to subs, while removing a few of the more draconian restrictions.

 

It can also be said that if the freeps in this game do not pay to reach a percentage similar to the market trend perhaps we should OFFER what other games in the industry offer in their F2P model. So in essence, we would offer more for free, IF that would have an effect.

 

The question is this really...would the following restrictions....

Lack of ability to post in Customer Service or a F2P forum, or receive customer service

Lack of ability to mail coins to their own characters

Lack of ability to craft a reasonable amount of items in que

Travel and movement restrictions

 

...translate into subscriptions? I think the answer is likely not. The other restrictions in place, IMO, are not only non punitive, they DO encourage subscriptions.

 

However, would the following....

 

Ability to earn CC in game other than achievements

Ability to remove mods from armor at no cost

Ability to purchase speeder 1 at level 1

Ability to earn monthly account awards for every month you are subscribed

Ability to be summoned by/summon group members on the same planet to a specific location

Lack of armor repair costs

Bonus to crit chance when crafting of 5/10/15 percent, depending on length of sub

Ability to que 1/3/5 extra crafted items in the crafting que, per companion, depending on length of sub

Ability to add 1/2/3 extra missions to crew mission que, depending on length of sub

Ability to use chat bubbles in groups

Ability to use a brand new appearance system

Access to special decorations (functioning, like other jukeboxes that play game music, gambling kiosks, etc), hooks that can be moved to almost anywhere before they are locked down, large floor hooks that allow open placement

 

....convince folks to sub? I believe they would.

 

We have to have more candy to offer subs, and remove a few of the more draconian restrictions, and I think we would have a winner in the market.

 

In the end, the main focus to convincing Freeps to pay more money should be by offering more to SUBS, not to Freeps.

Edited October 28, 2014 by LordArtemis

[DarkDisturbed]

The hate for non-subscribers is hilarious.

[Erasimus]

......

...if F2P players do not support a game, how do the top F2P games in the industry dominate the market in players, profits and income?

Read this

 

LoL and WoT are two of the top juggernauts in the industry. This game is a minor player compared to both of those games based on revenue, total players, profits.

.......

 

I would argue that they are two very different genres, MMORPG versus MMO, that appeal to different types of gamers. I very much doubt that SWTOR could compete, both in the character of the game and the number of players required in the pure F2P arena. World of Tanks needs all those players it has and it has the largest (Average Revenue Per User, Monthly) ARPU of all the F2P games. It only has about 9.1 million monthly active users and an ARPU of $4.51. League of Legends has an ARPU of $1.32 so it needs its enormous player base even more than WoT.

 

Source

Edited October 28, 2014 by Erasimus

[Kalfear]

I have yet to see any evidence that a HYBRID model such as this game will see any substantial revenue from those not subscribing.

 

Sure, in a strictly F2P game you will have some players who will spend money on micro transactions. IMO, those people are the same ones who would likely pay to subscribe, if that were an option.

 

I do not for one second believe that someone who is paying this game for free would be willing to spend a dime even if they lifted some of the restrictions.

 

How would you propose that they reward subscribers if they lift any of the current restrictions on F2P and preferred?

 

yup, the "theory" (because no reasonable or realistic person can claim its a legit argument) that a person who pays nothing is suddenly going to pay something if you give them even more for free is absolutely moronic at best and I haven't seen one shred of real evidence (respectable evidence) to support such a claim.

 

In fact EA themselves have point blank said its the subscribers who are the main cartel shop purchasers. Not the F2P/Preferred players who outright refuse to support this game or any F2P game they play anyways.

 

Time after time after time you read from them that if they feel they need to spend money, any money, they move onto a new F2P game where they don't need to.

 

They constantly refer to how them playing for free is somehow benefiting the game and making it more appealing (in their own self inflicted delusion)

 

As I said before, this game did AMAZING SALE NUMBERS at release with people knowing full well this was a sub only game. They still bought and played. The sub didn't scare anyone away.

 

It wasn't until the game came up short for them and they found the devs were unwilling to listen or repair the game that the sub numbers plummeted. But that's a completely different issue that's got nothing to do with sub vrs F2P.

 

I love how some people goto other products and unheard of and unknown companies to try and explain whats all ready been fully explained here beyond any argument

 

Sub didn't hurt game or scare players away

Bad Devs and bad design is what drove people away

Introduction of cartel market boosted profits but majority of those new profits came from double dipping on subscribers backs, not from the F2P crowd.

 

What more evidence does anyone need regarding this game?

The answers are plain, front, and center for all to see

 

SW:TOR is a MMORPG and doing well off the monies of subscribers (sub + Cartel purchases)

WOW is a MMORPG (one I hate mind you but thats besides point) and most successful MMORPG out there bar none. And its a Subscription game.

And more sub MMORPGs that do fine financially

 

Rift is a MMORPG that does the F2P model and its not competing with sW:TOR or WOW

Neverwinter is a F2P MMORPG and its not competing with SW:TOR or WOW

And many many many more MMORPGs that embraced full F2P who make some money but not competeing with the big titles

 

As for all those other names like World of Tanks, Farmville, what ever, they not MMORPGs so who really gives a flying bleep about them as not relevant to this topic.