62 replies to this topic

[Terran123rd]

Title says it all.

In a game of almost 500,000 users (going by the forum count, at least), with likely 10% or less of those players paying anything, can the game, or, really, any similar F2P game, really be kept going purely off of the sale of cosmetics?

With server costs liable to number in the tens of thousands of dollars a month, paying salaries to roughly 100 or so people that are liable to be quite a few hundreds, if not a few thousands, of dollars a month, office rentals, taxes, bills and other expenses, and then the (likely) sizable chunk that IGP takes for itself, is it really possible for PGI to do something as simple as keep the servers going while still doing F2P the "right" way, i.e. purely cosmetic purchases?

The recent introduction of consumables (I'm am not saying that they're pay-to-win, but they do affect gameplay) suggests not. There simply aren't enough people buying paint, skins, even hero 'mechs for them to keep the game running purely from those sales.

Thoughts?

[Royalewithcheese]

tf2 and lol seem to do okay

[Tennex]

hell yeah. if they can do it right and keep player trust. as well as have people spread the word by mouth.

best example is
league of legends. more players than World of warcraft

arguably the best MMO right now.

Edited by Tennex, 20 March 2013 - 03:23 PM.

[Impyrium]

When you put it like that, it does sound a little shaky. But I think that F2P is corrupted anyway. The way I see it, F2P was simply designed to lure in unexperienced gamers, or everyday gamers, into game that really isn't worth the trouble. Now, that's not the case with MW:O- the way I see it, they've done it perfectly right. It's completely playable without playing a cent, and experienced players can spend money to personalise their ingame assets well.

However... you aren't kidding. This means a lot less profits for the developers, which is why they really should have stuck with the "pay for the game, holy crap, you have it" system of old. Works better, keeps teh kiddies out (mostly) and means a solid payment. Just my opinion though.

Edited by AUSwarrior24, 20 March 2013 - 03:25 PM.

[CycKath]

Given the size of IGP and the player base, honestly I don't think it can. Best option is to grow the player base, lowering prices will just benefit the 10% who already buy despite people claiming it'd trigger people to buy.

[Shumabot]

Terran123rd, on 20 March 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Title says it all.

In a game of almost 500,000 users (going by the forum count, at least), with likely 10% or less of those players paying anything, can the game, or, really, any similar F2P game, really be kept going purely off of the sale of cosmetics?

With server costs liable to number in the tens of thousands of dollars a month, paying salaries to roughly 100 or so people that are liable to be quite a few hundreds, if not a few thousands, of dollars a month, office rentals, taxes, bills and other expenses, and then the (likely) sizable chunk that IGP takes for itself, is it really possible for PGI to do something as simple as keep the servers going while still doing F2P the "right" way, i.e. purely cosmetic purchases?

The recent introduction of consumables (I'm am not saying that they're pay-to-win, but they do affect gameplay) suggests not. There simply aren't enough people buying paint, skins, even hero 'mechs for them to keep the game running purely from those sales.

Thoughts?

This game doesn't have even close to 500k players. It doesn't even have a tenth that.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

well technically, wot is f2p done right because if you're good enough you never have to spend a dime.

it's going to be hard for pgi, i'll be interested to see if they can do it

Edited by Battlecruiser, 20 March 2013 - 03:32 PM.

[Jman5]

If there is one thing I have learned from online gaming communities, it's that they consistently underestimate just how well the games are doing from both a population and financial standpoint. Part of the reason is because people don't like to talk about how much they have spent on a game. They don't want to tell people they have spent $100 on paint and cammo. Or they spent money converting EXP to GXP.

Finally, be careful about attributing recent features like consumables as some out of the blue desperate ploy to stay solvent. This stuff has been planned and in the works for a loooooong time. Well before the first paint went on sale. Before we even went into Open Beta.

[Shumabot]

Battlecruiser, on 20 March 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

well technically, wot is f2p done right because if you're good enough you never have to spend a dime.

Except where they gate gameplay modes and specific tanks and upgrades to cash purchases. Top tier competition in WoT is loaded with real cash transactions, which is what's happening MWO.

[Volthorne]

Battlecruiser, on 20 March 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

well technically, wot is f2p done right because if you're good enough you never have to spend a dime.

You seriously didn't just say that.... *rubs eyes* .... You did. Someone please fetch me an axe. Or a guillotine.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

Volthorne, on 20 March 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

You seriously didn't just say that.... *rubs eyes* .... You did. Someone please fetch me an axe. Or a guillotine.

success breeds hate and envy i guess.

[Shumabot]

Battlecruiser, on 20 March 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

success breeds hate and envy i guess.

WoT is currently venting players and has half the population it did a year ago. At their peak they had (in total players) a tenth the average monthly log in rate of LoL, a F2P game actually doing the right thing and making billions.

WoT is f2p done in the unsustainable cash grab way.

Edited by Shumabot, 20 March 2013 - 03:37 PM.

[Captain Midnight]

I don't know why everyone thinks that cosmetic F2P won't work, when League of Legends and Team Fortress 2 are wildly successful and completely eclipse World of Tanks.

World of Tanks is really kind of a failure compared to the meteoric success of League of Legends, and everyone LOVES league because it's cosmetic instead of Pay2Win, everyone talks mad trash about tanks because gold ammo is BS.

[WardenWolf]

AUSwarrior24, on 20 March 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

However... you aren't kidding. This means a lot less profits for the developers, which is why they really should have stuck with the "pay for the game, holy crap, you have it" system of old. Works better, keeps teh kiddies out (mostly) and means a solid payment. Just my opinion though.

The problem with the old model is you either have a big up-front paycheck with little to nothing as the years go by (which means the game drops off after a while, development stops, and eventually servers are turned off) - OR - you end up with a subscription service, which sets a higher barrier of entry. F2P with microtransactions lets people spend as much or as little as you want, with the non-paying players basically being there to make sure there is a healthy player-base size for the paying folks. I know I've spent way more on MWO so far than if I'd just bought a $50 game one time, and yet I don't have to worry about having to keep paying every month in order to play.

[CycKath]

But does TF2 really count? It was a retail product first, then gained the ability to buy cosmetics, then finally went f2p supported purely by cosmetics. The retail release covered development costs prior to becoming f2p, where MWO never had a retail release and I question if founders program really equates.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

Shumabot, on 20 March 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

WoT is f2p done in the unsustainable cash grab way.

that too. of course they're russians and as such both their people and companies have different cultural values, and this is why it's declining in popularity in america

[stjobe]

Creating a game isn't like running a game; You're operating at a loss for the entire development phase, and normally don't start seeing a positive cash-flow until release; at which point you start paying back your investors who ponied up the cash for that long development phase.

IGP/PGI has taken a bit of a different tack; they ran the Founder program (which netted $5 million), and they've gone with the "soft release" open beta where they get income by selling MC, all to try to minimize the amount of cash they need to borrow to get the game out the door.

So basically whether or not it's sustainable depends on how much cash the investors have put in, and when those investors expect a return on their investment. If it's three years out, or five, there's plenty of time to build player-base and get all the cash store items in place. If it's less, not so much.

As for F2P in general, it's a very lucrative business mode if you suspect you'll have much "thrash" in your player-base (i.e. people coming and going), and/or a small enough player-base to not be able to sustain a P2P model.

[xDeityx]

Terran123rd, on 20 March 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Thoughts?

Yes if they focus on building a large enough player base first through quality content, good communication, and not being too greedy and overpricing everything.

So, no.

[Matt Minus]

Of course it's not sustainable. Everyone wants to oversimplify complicated phenomena and act like outliers are the rule.

Saying "of course it is, look at LoL" is like saying that every MMO should be successful charging $15/month because WoW did it.

As was pointed out in the OP, the model assumes most players will never open their wallets and relies on economies of scale to make the 5% or so who will a sustainable source of income. I suspect there are significant first mover advanatges that diminish as more and more games move f2p and split the pool of players. The market simply can't support a large number of LoL size player bases, there aren't that many gamers. And, to get that many gamers a game will have to be as broad as possible. Anything unique or niche will probably lose out to elves and hobbits.

[Vassago Rain]

CycKath, on 20 March 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

But does TF2 really count? It was a retail product first, then gained the ability to buy cosmetics, then finally went f2p supported purely by cosmetics. The retail release covered development costs prior to becoming f2p, where MWO never had a retail release and I question if founders program really equates.

And LoL is based on a mod that's really a custom map for warcraft 3, that's really a map for starcraft, and you'd need to buy those games to play it.

What's your point?