MMO Subs are a dead model - John Smedley

[Nebu]

The question is whether they made enough money to justify their initial development costs, which were predicated on the basis of a subscription model. And that is far from proven. If they were releasing a f2p game, rather than trying to extend the natural life of a dwindling game, it would be a much stronger argument.

Or put more simply would they have spent that much on development if it was going to release as a f2p game?

Thank you.  

The other question is how do you know this:

These MMOs were made with the intent of being subscription based, but because they were unsuccessful they went F2P and then had a large revenue increase, demonstrating that the F2P model can be at LEAST as successful as a subscription model.

At least as successful?  I don't know where you got the figures to justify the point.  That's not to say that there aren't some very successful F2P games, because there are.  They just don't have AAA development budgets based on a F2P model.  


On a side note: How is Free Realms doing?  That would be an interesting game to watch the financial story of with regard to this discussion.

[sinij]

As for F2P games that "don't suck", that's going to be subjective, but off the top of my head:
LOTRO
DDO
CoH

Really? DDO where you have to make characters on each server and grind favor so you can buy dungeon unlock to make past level 12 or CoH where "buy shit at the store" is part of the game tutorial? You can barely see a game under all that "buy buy buy" pitch, like you playing one giant Cash Shop commercial! Cash shop took an axe to what I assume was at some point decent (or at least redeemable) games. Otherwise, yes I agree these three games are few of the "better" F2P games, but only because rest of them (Korean grinders, I am looking at you) is outright vile, disgusting refuse.

Verdict - these three games are unplayable unless you plan to spend heavily in the cash shop.

Say, I have a fun game for you - my house needs drains cleaned in the basement, some vile stuff semi-plugged them, would you like to play Fun and Exciting game of Clean The Drains?! I even promise not to charge you to get to max level!

[Rokal]

You're counting paying for content as an 'obnoxious design'? Are MMO expansion packs also obnoxious? It's the same damn thing (only without a required subscription).

I have no problem paying for content in DDO. You can get to level 8 or so for free without having to grind anything, which is probably a good 50-70 hours of free content. After that you either pay for the quest packs you want, grind points if you don't have or want to spend any money, or buy a subscription.

I would mind if they were asking me to pay money for gear repairs or to train new spells. But content? 100% okay.

[Kageru]

Fairly pointless arguing something subjective like that. Whether DDO / COH cash shop makes it "unplayable" or even a concern is a personal judgement, or a statistical one in terms of changes in active player count.

I consider DDO a little pricey for what it offers, but I'm sure others don't care. I do prefer the CoH model (payment earns you permanent access to some things) over the DDO "well, you could try to grind that much favor if you really wanted" approach though.

[sinij]

You're counting paying for content as an 'obnoxious design'?

I am not the one making them advertise as "FREE, LOOK, FREE TO PLAY". It isn't. They have free trial and even when you pay the game is infested with cash shop-ness. The very least it is false advertising. Buying content part of design is probably least objectionable, aside from the fact that it creates tons of issue for a group play, but when EVERYTHING in the game is MUST BUY it gets obnoxious.

What I mind about DDO (aside from boring combat) is that entire game feels like one huge DLC shop. They really did a bad job of cutting it up into small "content for sale" packages, to the point that there isn't core game left - its _ALL_ been sliced up into "buy this adventure" chunks. Want non-gimp character? Got to pay! Want to see past starter quests? Got to pay!

Are MMO expansion packs also obnoxious?

I personally don't mind paying for expansions because they usually come bundled with a whole new "ride". You typically get more content of every type, including new endgame, and on top of that whole bunch of balancing changes. This is very different from "can't go there" paywalls in existing game, especially when entire game is one huge paywall. The only obnoxious part of MMO expansions is that developers go out of their way to make sure you don't have an option of not buying expansion and just keep playing game as-is.

[Malakili]

You're counting paying for content as an 'obnoxious design'?

I am not the one making them advertise as "FREE, LOOK, FREE TO PLAY". It isn't. The very least its false advertising.

This is a really different argument that you were making before.

[sinij]

We are very specifically discussing the topic "is paying for content can be considered an obnoxious design". Answer is no, but its complicated.

[Rokal]

Are MMO expansion packs also obnoxious?

I personally don't mind paying for expansions because they usually come bundled with a whole new "ride". You typically get more content of every type, including new endgame, and on top of that whole bunch of balancing changes. This is very different from "can't go there" paywalls in existing game.

Most expansion packs are literally '"can't go there" paywalls. WoW's first expansion, Burning Crusade, was a portal that you couldn't go through or level any further unless you paid for the expansion.

I can't think of a single game where balance changes were only made if you bought the expansion. Maybe some RTS expansions? For MMOs, everyone gets the balance changes for free. The most recent LOTRO expansion included a ton of balance changes, but there were a couple differences when you compare it to something like the last EQ2 expansion

1) Access was permanent even if you didn't stay subscribed
2) Content could be purchased a la carte. If you just wanted the questing experience, you could buy that instead of paying for raid and dungeon content you might not want. Or you could just buy the bundle.

I'd happily accept an MMO expansion model where I could pay $40 for the expansion, or $25 for the expansion without the new battleground/world pvp garbage I'll never use.

I really just don't see your point. Paying for content is okay as long as you only retain access to the content while paying a subscription and the game tells you up front that you'll have to pay?

Okay, I guess.

[Lantyssa]

Take what you would spend on a box and expansions, not sub fees, just those.  How much content would that give you access to?  In most of those games it'd be a fair amount.

If you're smart about purchases, even more.  For LotR I bought the Mirkwood complete for $10, which gave me a ton of content after they went f2p.  In CoH I'd tended to buy their frequent box releases once they hit $10 to give myself a month of play plus the goodies.  That's resulted in a lot of permanent unlocks and reward points.  In Free Realms I would buy Station Cash on the double-coin weekends, then only buy stuff I really want when it's on sale, effectively giving me four times the buying power for being patient.

Plus a lot of these games like to have little give-a-ways.  Save the coins up and get something nice, or get lucky and receive free goodies.

[Ratman_tf]

Most expansion packs are literally '"can't go there" paywalls. WoW's first expansion, Burning Crusade, was a portal that you couldn't go through or level any further unless you paid for the expansion.

I wasn't too fond of the idea of expansions limiting access to content, mostly because it segregates the playerbase. But that ship sailed long ago.

P.S. Eve gives everyone major expansions as part of their subscription. I'd also be relativley fine with F2P that limits access to expansions unless you have a sub, like AO's approach.

[tgr]

P.S. Eve gives everyone major expansions as part of their subscription.

For varying degrees of "major".

[Kageru]

I don't mind paying for a new expansion as long as the content it delivers justifies the cost. Indeed I'd almost rather that large development efforts like that are specifically paid for rather than trying to get the money out of regular play. Even better if you have some potential to opt out of it if the value is bad (though of course they mostly tie it into the leveling or gearing path). You can selectively buy Guild wars expansions though.

I think it's reasonable to distrust how f2p conceals the true costs though. If you took the amount of new content in a wow expansion compared to buying the same amount of content in the DDO store you'd probably find free to play can be really expensive.

[Ingmar]

Most expansion packs are literally '"can't go there" paywalls. WoW's first expansion, Burning Crusade, was a portal that you couldn't go through or level any further unless you paid for the expansion.

I wasn't too fond of the idea of expansions limiting access to content, mostly because it segregates the playerbase. But that ship sailed long ago.

P.S. Eve gives everyone major expansions as part of their subscription. I'd also be relativley fine with F2P that limits access to expansions unless you have a sub, like AO's approach.

They're about as major as CoH issues - in other words, what they call 'content patches' in games with real expansions.

[Mrbloodworth]

Side note: I can't find any official anything about Firefall having an energy system. I was surprised that slipped by me. Only thing I see them officially supporting is cosmetics and XP boosts. Care to link where you had seen this announced?

The guy who founded the studio was on the Weekend Confirmed podcast talking about it last week. Specifically he was talking about quests that you can only do every so often but you can pay to be able to do them immediately. That's not EXACTLY energy but it's functionally pretty equivalent. I don't mean to slag the game, I don't know much about it, but that sort of thing seems pretty clearly inspired by Farmville-style systems.

Thats not an energy system. More like daily with a cash shop unlock.

[Kageru]

Devil is in the details. If once you've done those quests you might as well log it's functionally equivalent to an energy system.

[Mrbloodworth]

Seems to go against what they are saying here.

[Valmorian]

At least as successful?  I don't know where you got the figures to justify the point.

Isn't that why Turbine made LOTRO F2P?  I had heard it was because of the outrageous success that making DDO F2P had on their revenue stream?

Are you really going to try and argue that All of these Subscription MMO's are switching to a F2P model because the F2P model is LESS successful?

[Valmorian]

Or put more simply would they have spent that much on development if it was going to release as a f2p game?

The real question is if the revenue stream from a F2P game is at least as high as a middling-successful MMO.  I would suggest the answer to THAT is yes, given how many are going that way.

[Valmorian]

Verdict - these three games are unplayable unless you plan to spend heavily in the cash shop.

So basically, they don't offer you what  YOU want inside their F2P model and are therefore "unplayable"?  That must be a surprise to all the F2P players that are playing them.

Seriously Sinj, it's not like these are not playable games just because you can't get everything you want out of them without paying for something in the cash shop.


----

In reality, the BEST F2P game out there right now in my opinion is Team Fortress 2.  That is a game you certainly can enjoy JUST FINE without spending a dime on the cash shop. 

[sinij]

Verdict - these three games are unplayable unless you plan to spend heavily in the cash shop.

So basically, they don't offer you what  YOU want inside their F2P model and are therefore "unplayable"?  

They are simply not "whole game" by any definition of game, incomplete and mangled to introduce cash shops, they are Free Trials at most. If you remove all non-free parts these titles would not be, could not be considered completed product.

Seriously Sinj, it's not like these are not playable games  

That is not how I see it. CoH probably WORSE than others at forcing you to spend something, it is not playable until you pay up. Like you don't have access to any chat channels other than local, can't send tells and can't trade with other players - ridiculous restrictions like that. Now, you can get past that with minimal payment, but at that point it isn't free. Too bad, other than mandatory "pay something" scheme and dear-god-so-bad interface game is actually enjoyable.

[Margalis]

Seems to go against what they are saying here.

Dude, he was on the podcast last week. You can listen to it and disagree I suppose but it's kind of silly to not listen to it and disagree anyway. I really don't think I am in any way misrepresenting what he said. Almost verbatim it was that there were quests you could do every so often but you could pay to do them more often. And that's ok because you aren't paying for power in that you are paying to do the quest but you still have to actually do it - you are paying for opportunity rather than power directly.

Having a quest you can do once a day but you can pay to do more often is functionally almost exactly an energy system. No, it's not quite the same but it's a hair away and the idea that you can do something on a overlong schedule but accelerate it with payment is the core of energy-based games.

[Kageru]

Isn't that why Turbine made LOTRO F2P?  I had heard it was because of the outrageous success that making DDO F2P had on their revenue stream?

Are you really going to try and argue that All of these Subscription MMO's are switching to a F2P model because the F2P model is LESS successful?

It's not a very convincing argument because LOTRO was a declining game. So looking at another declining game in the form of DDO and following their lead doesn't lead to many conclusions other than it was better than shutting down.

You'd need a successful game going f2p (like WoW now) or a big name MMO launching with a f2p model as the intended revenue model rather than as a life-extender. At the moment the dominant model is launching as a subscription title and switching to f2p when the game is in decline (as STO and DCUO are in the process of doing).

[Chimpy]

Can we all just agree that Sinij should live (or already lives) in a padded cell and move on with our lives?

[sinij]

 

[Valmorian]

...Verdict - these three games are unplayable unless you plan to spend heavily in the cash shop...

The vast majority of those restrictions disappear as soon as you spend ANY AMOUNT of money in the cash shop.  You don't need to invest heavily.  It's quite clear that those restrictions are only there to discourage gold sellers and scammers, and that makes sense.

[Valmorian]

At the moment the dominant model is launching as a subscription title and switching to f2p when the game is in decline (as STO and DCUO are in the process of doing).

Given the relative new popularity of F2P as a model in North America, I fail to see how this could be any other way.  This is hardly a knock against the profitability of the F2P model, which by all accounts is very successful indeed.

[UnSub]

The other issue is that sub-based payment models looked a lot better 5 years ago, which is when a lot current MMOs started development.

[sinij]

Somebody posted this drivel in other thread.

Choice quotes:

Free-to-play is the future of the games industry, says Xfire in a recent report. The F2P titles supported by micro-transactions were once thought of as a niche market, but according to the numbers, mainstream monthly fee titles like World of Warcraft, are on the decline while free games are on the rise.

Translation: WoW pushed everybody out of DIKU market, so they were forced to go F2P. So yes, "free" games on the raise because alternative was to shut down.

According to Xfire, World of Warcraft’s player base saw a brief increase near the end of 2010 that carried over into early 2011 following the release of the Cataclysm expansion. But Azeroth’s total population of players has been in decline since then.

Xfire doesn't have WoW numbers, aside from what can be seen in the end of the year public financial reports, so it is all speculation. While it is likely WoW has a subscription drop due to Cata, timing of the events suggest expansion and not releases of F2P titles made a difference.

Xfire, which pulls its statistics from over 19 million players using the company’s free chat and server browser client, saw 60,000 daily active unique (DAU) users in September 2009. Today, that number has been halved, with only approximately 30,000 DAU players logging into WoW each day.

Translation: We took a web survey, so it must be true! Look at us, we are relevant!

How positive? According to Xfire, APB saw a 200 percent increase in players while LotRO quadrupled its active user base, tripling revenues for Turbine after switching to the F2P model

This is where it gets interesting - claim is that LotRO quadrupled users by going F2P and tripled revenues. "Quadrupled" part sounds believable, "tripled revenues" are not especially when numbers come from third-party. They are suggesting that your average F2P player spends nearly a full sub's worth of money in a cash shop. Research suggests that 'social' gamers spend 1-2$ on average, to approach "tripled revenues" point LotRO is off by a factor of at least 10.

As much as I want to see WoW dethroned, I don't see it happening from a F2P title. There just aren't enough MMO gamers in existence to play hypothetical F2P title to hit WoW sub revenues at a current levels of $/player. Do you think any F2P MMO could hit 200+ mil active players this decade? US population is about 300 mil.


TL;DR Whole article is a bunch of self-serving "look at us, we are relevant" marketing by Xfire, hard to believe that someone actually took them serious.

[Dark_MadMax]

As much as I want to see WoW dethroned, I don't see it happening from a F2P title. There just aren't enough MMO gamers in existence to play hypothetical F2P title to hit WoW sub revenues at a current levels of $/player. Do you think any F2P MMO could hit 200+ mil active players this decade? US population is about 300 mil.

F2P revenue per player (free or not)  is 4-10 $. in WoT I know many people who spent $200+ in first 3 months. and game is 100% f2p

[MahrinSkel]

Yeah, $1-2 is for "casual" games, "social" games, whatever the term is this week.  It includes a *lot* of people who pay $0.  Figures for the average of people who have paid some are closer to $4/each, and even that is misleading because the handful of people who pour in thousands are compensating for a lot of people who pay a dollar or less.  In any give month, the percentage of people who actually put money into an F2P game on Facebook is in the low single digits.

It's much higher for the MMO that has gone F2P, or the MMO that has a subscription plus a cash shop.  Facebook games are all about casting as wide a net as possible in order to catch the whale with too much money and a desperate need to be liked.

--Dave

[sinij]

It's much higher for the MMO that has gone F2P, or the MMO that has a subscription plus a cash shop.

What you say sounds reasonable, but do you have any numbers to share with us?

Well, whatever it is, average normalized monthly revenue a F2P player brings must be greater than cost of infrastructure they use (bandwidth, servers, so on) and less than subscription they would pay. So that is anywhere from 0.25c to $14. Claim that going F2P only increased number of active players four times while supposedly tripling revenue still sounds highly suspicious, since you get awfully close to logical upper bound where everyone, including WoW, would jump into F2P.

They might hide these numbers from us, but inside industry such figures, especially if they are THAT GOOD would be impossible to keep a secret.

[sinij]

F2P revenue per player (free or not)  is 4-10 $.

Over what time? Monthly? Lifetime? If lifetime, that is very close to my assumption of 0.75-1.5 per month per player, after initial 2 weeks to a month "active" status that generates nearly zero.

Also, what would be typical "active" duration for F2P? Lower, about the same or greater than sub? Yes, there is no need to unsubscribe with F2P, but if you are not playing you are not generating MTs.

I imagine #1 challenge for any F2P is how to widen "money" band, from after initial 'honeymoon' stage is finished and before player moves on, where they could generate money.  If you make 'honeymoon' too short, you going to hurt your average 'active' time a lot, if you make it too long you will make your "money" band too short. Well, I am sure its somebody's job to figure exactly how many foozles killed it takes to addict average player to your game so you could start milking them for all they got.

[Kageru]

Any discussion of subscription versus f2p games that focus on participants, especially if they can count in-actives, is inherently flawed to the point of being useless.

Still, good to see WoW start to fall. Maybe it will open up some space for something to replace it. Though it's largely a self inflicted injury since Cataclysm was just a very poorly developed expansion.

[MahrinSkel]

I have a theory that any MMO is two bad expansion from collapse.  Thanks to Panderia, it looks like I'm going to get my chance to find out.  Just reeks of "We need to do something Asian-themed, but no ninjas."

Pander-ia, it kind of telegraphs it.  Blizzard has been reduced to design by marketing focus group.

--DAve

[sinij]

  Blizzard has been reduced to design by marketing focus group.

Well, Cata was design by asshole devs trying to force people into liking being clearly second-class players. This flew like a lead kite. Next logical step is to re-focus on what customers actually want and go with it.

Strangely enough Panderia (sp?) is what focus groups came up with? Who were they putting into these focus groups, 10 year olds?