Another Anti F2P post

This one though may be taken two ways. A Gamasutra news article talks briefly about how large the market for F2P is. Some staggering numbers with little sense to them without paying for the report though. Tripling and Doubling Revenue by 2015 based on market? Unless they know some new titles coming down the pipe that’s hard to believe.

The thing that drew my eye was this:

He adds, “We’’re seeing average revenue per paying user top $28 per month across the 145 titles that Live Gamer powers around the world. With engaging games and a solid monetization strategy in place developers and publishers can see great success leveraging item-based business models.

That’s an average of $28 per monetized user, not in general. That’s twice as high as a sub fee. It depends how they count monetized customers. If they count anyone who spends at the item shop, it’s worrisome that it is so high.

If its a small amount of hardcore spending a lot, with many casuals paying less than a sub, I’d expect the average to be a lot lower. Only so many people can justify spending 50bucks a month and a lot more would spend less. My worry is that most monetized users actually spend a lot more, and only a few casuals bring the average down, keeping the average high. I’m not sure of the math since it’s a study that they are selling though.

It bolsters my point that f2p for people isn’t a deal. If you like the game to spend money on it, chances are on average you are going to pay a lot more than a sub, for no real increase in value.


3 Responses to Another Anti F2P post

  1. Tesh says:

    The best games allow for those who would spend a lot to convert to a sub, methinketh. Pure item shop games really can be troublesome for addicts… though it might be noted that sub games have just as much trouble with time addiction. That’s less visible, though.

    Then again, it’s not like this is unprecedented or unusual. Some responsibility for spending has to be laid at the users’ feet. If players want to pay the buffet price, have at it! If they would rather the a la carte pricing, let them spend their own money, eh? If a company is gouging customers, call ’em on it, like Allods, and let the market forces weed out the incompetence. It’s not the business model at fault, it’s incompetent and greedy salesmen.

    A note, though, ARPPU is different from ARPU. ARPPU is “average revenue per *paying* user”, while ARPU is “average revenue per user”. The two can churn out some vastly different numbers, since the latter incorporates nonpaying players. The numberwonks love ARPPU, but ARPU tends to be a more useful number with wider application since it looks at the whole playerbase (meaning it is relevant to overhead). Both are useful, though… just within the proper context.

  2. Dblade says:

    Yeah, the focus is on paying users. If you like the game you are or should convert at some point, and the statistic here shows that doing so is going to cost you.

    The time addiction is a false continuum. You will still have time issues with f2p. Even boosting exp rate or purchasing items wont get rid of the grind, just lessen it. You don’t see the reverse though, but with more sub games going for a cash shop we might anyways.

  3. Tesh says:

    Time addiction is relevant as *time costs money* in a sub game, but not so in a F2P game. Yes, you still get grind in both, but you can grind in a F2P game with no money cost.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: