sotora wrote:1. How many F2P games are so succesful vs overall number of F2P games?megadeath wrote: Actually F2P model is extremely profitable since computing became extremely cheap. Just look at World of Tanks. Or better look at World of Warships. Those guys peak at maybe 40k players online, yet not only roll out new content, but also develop a lot of new technologies.
2. Continous developement of lobby pvp game is much cheaper and organisationally easier than for full fledged AAA MMORPG that has to deal with much wider range of issues and provide wider range of content. Besides World of Warships is bankrolled by WoT.
3. Those games you mentioned as succesful games are lobby instanced games exactly like final version of Eternal Crusade.
1. Yes few out of hundreads out there. Going like that you could say that P2P was succesful too cause you got few tites successful out of doznes/hundreads. Point is:1. LoL, Hearthstone, Dota2, World of Tanks, PoE, TF2, Warframe, War Thunder. First ones that came to my head.
2. Session MMOs require less writing, but a lot more technical research. But there is a catch. Session MMOs are hosted on one server cluster unlike classic MMOs. Also session MMOs require everything to be calculated serverside, which is not the issue with classic MMOs
3. They're still MMOs
A. any reasonable business model can be succesful
B. F2P does not mean game will be successful
C. Gamers does not want to or cannot spend as much money as it's required to bankroll huge AAA MMORPGs anymore, at least for now.
2. Lobby online games need less money and time to make. Simple as that.
3. Only if all those online games like FIfa, Quake, Diablo, Call of Duty, Farmville, etc are MMOs too. Then all online multiplayer games are MMOs.
But whatever word you descirbe to call them. Saying that Planetside-like open pvp game will be succesful cause 15v15 instanced pvp game is succesful - not sure where is the point you're trying to make.
