115520-say-no-to-f2p-page-6

Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6, Page 7
== Content ==
			
{| class="blockquote"
You linked to a single developer claiming F2P would be dead in short order because it is unsustainable. I linked to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 
 
If you are inclined to take the prophecy of a single man which can be demonstrated to be false as if it were true, go for it, but don't pretend it is anything other than what it is; a man mouthing off about a future he not only couldn't know; but that current facts clearly refute.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
You are falling off a building. Someone tells you that you will hit the ground. You tell him that "I have not yet hit the ground, in fact I'm having a great time. That I will hit the ground is refuted!"
 
Some FTP titles are doing fine now, even great, I do not argue with that. But as the F2P model spreads, I agree with the author that we will see a lot of games not finding enough whales.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Definitely not F2P, but how do you guys feel about it going B2P, like GW2?
 
I like the idea of CREDD, there's nothing wrong with it, but the $60 entry fee is what puts me off. I was in the Beta and I'm currently using up my 7 day pass. I'm really enjoying the game, but I am certainly not willing to shell out the price of a AAA game with the knowledge that I will probably be paying for the game round about every second month.
 
I'd say bring the price down to $20, that would be fine, but to me the game just doesn't merit that initial high cost. It would do the game good to lower it and get more people in the game, and with the bad rep it's receiving, I just can't fathom why the developers wouldn't lower the price. I feel it's hurting them more than anything else. A good sale might entice people to try the game out.
 
As for going F2P... No.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
That's a terrible analogy... 
 
F2P games are raking in billions each year. The suggestion that F2P is unsustainable is demonstrably false. Sure we can find a few F2P games that have or will tank; and we will find plenty that won't. The doom and gloom proclamations are unsubstantiated and unwarranted and belie a personal ideology held by the gentleman who made the claims. 
 
We may all not appreciate some predatory forms of F2P; but it's clearly a winning system in many instances; of which SWTOR is just one example. 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
GW2 model.
 
buy the box, play.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
And given that SWTOR's numbers are almost certainly driven by widespread familiarity with and loyalty to the Star Wars brand, I'm not sure they're really relevant to much of anything surrounding the options for MMORPGs in general or Wildstar in particular.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
You are falling off a building. Someone tells you that you will hit the ground. You tell him that "I have not yet hit the ground, in fact I'm having a great time. That I will hit the ground is refuted!"
 
Some FTP titles are doing fine now, even great, I do not argue with that. But as the F2P model spreads, I agree with the author that we will see a lot of games not finding enough whales.
----
			I say NO to f2p!	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
You are falling off a building. Someone tells you that you will hit the ground. You tell him that "I have not yet hit the ground, in fact I'm having a great time. That I will hit the ground is refuted!"
 
Some FTP titles are doing fine now, even great, I do not argue with that. But as the F2P model spreads, I agree with the author that we will see a lot of games not finding enough whales.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
So, going F2P is like jumping off of a building? You're implying a certainty of failure, and also of a negative condition.
 
So, let's check the first one: certainty of failure. We know this isn't true because many games survive and thrive after the F2P transition, which they couldn't do if failure were certain. Check two: we also know that going F2P isn't in and of itself a negative condition for the same reason, which is that games that go F2P can develop a more vibrant, more profitable player base.
 
The market disagrees with you, in any case. There's a little company called "Google" that has done quite well with its F2P business model, and if you look back through history you can find many more examples (ever wonder why Adobe offers its pdf reader for free?).
 
The only thing that's proven is that SOME people don't like it, and they are of course free to vote with their wallets.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
When it went F2P, people dubbed it "TORtanic" and it was deemed the epitome of a failed game. When it's pointed out how well it's doing, now it's "only successful because it's Star Wars".
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I directly linked to one of EA's 2013 Quarterly reports Post F2P switch. 
 
As of the Cantina Tour  It was revealed that SWTOR has around 10 million casual players, 1 million active players every month, and half a million active subscriptions.
 
The more recent information for SWTOR comes from primarily the EA Quarterlies as well as the EA conference calls and Investor information,   and data aggregation services.
 
 
Here is a recent source for SWTOR's subs being ~500k as well as the numbers I listed previously
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
I don't see this as a slam dunk for F2P, and I don't see how you can claim that it is. We don't have the information we'd need to actually remove subscribers from the revenue estimates, nor do we have any way of accurately estimating the revenues lost from the switch--and the range of possible values for the loss are about the same as the range of possible values for the revenue.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
That's because you didn't read EA's quarterly reports. and investor information, which to be fair are long, boring and technical.  Either way I think you get the point. SWTOR is if nothing else very financially successful. That was the main point, and I think we can all agree on that point. 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Oh. I see. So the main point wasn't that F2P is why SWTOR is successful? 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
Which is funny, since 'being starwars' didn't do a thing to save SWG.... I wonder how that works?
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
SWG's failure was due to SOE trying to reinvent the wheel, similar to what blizzard has been doing with wow.  The only reason WoW isn't dead yet is because it had a much larger pool of subscribers to start with.  Many of whose behavior and blind defense of blizzard could be likened to Stockholm syndrome.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I agree in full; but I still pose the assertion to peole who think SWTOR is only successful because it is starwars, to explain SWG. 
 
But yea, fully agree with this post.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
While not many could disagree with f2p having saved swtor, saying that the starwars IP was not a major factor in the success of transition isn't necessarily correct either.  Since we don't have much supporting evidence of this type of transition(with the same success) with IP's other than starwars, either case could be correct and we'll really never know.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I think the fact that the starwars IP didn't save a bad game before (SWG) is substantial evidence that SWTOR has more going for it than just the starwars IP. Nothing more nothing less. Sure being starwars might help a little, but the game is solid, it has fun and working systems and a powerful story. It hasn't faild not because it is starwars, but because it is a fundamentally good game, that also happens to be starwars. 
 
The gameplay makes the game, the IP is the icing on the cake. If the game was bad it would have failed just like SWG did regardless of IP. While you are correct that we can't quantify that, it's pretty clear qualitatively that SWTOR is more than just an IP.
----
			
This thread is pointless. Its not going fail2play, read the interview with Donatelli on MMORPG. They blatently say they are spending time correcting the game and improving it ie listening to the fans and fixing it.
 
This isn't a team thats trying to overhaul a game for fail2play.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
So following this train of thought, if people are already leaving a game because of the gameplay and game systems that they are unhappy with, would it be unfair in that case to assume that a f2p transition would be more or less a death knell?
----
			
From all the forum reading, I always thought the connection of SWTOR making money on the F2P plan and the brand of Starwars was because of the Themed Cartel gift-packs the F2P released. Not just because of the subscriptions.
 
You know.. those random-in-content gift boxes that you buy with real money and might contain a Starwars collectable mesh armor, mount or dye?
 
Logically, I always thought that without the iconic Starwars (exclusive) goodies inside, the high sales of the gift-packs would not have been the same, and the game might not have financially turned a success.
 
This is however a theory (obviously) and without hard data, we just can't be sure.
 
Other games tried to copy the idea and I have seen gift-packs from various generic F2P mmos but without that 'special brand' content, I would never bother buying them..	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Google and adobe? Seriously?  You could not have picked two worse examples to support your case.  Google having a f2p business model?  You just lost all credibility whatsoever.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
From all the forum reading, I always thought the connection of SWTOR making money on the F2P plan and the brand of Starwars was because of the Themed Cartel gift-packs the F2P released. Not just because of the subscriptions.
 
You know.. those random-in-content gift boxes that you buy with real money and might contain a Starwars collectable mesh armor, mount or dye?
 
Logically, I always thought that without the iconic Starwars (exclusive) goodies inside, the high sales of the gift-packs would not have been the same, and the game might not have financially turned a success.
 
Other games tried to copy the idea and I have seen gift-packs from various generic F2P mmos but without that 'special brand' content, I would never bother buying them..
 
This is however a theory (obviously) and without hard data, we just can't be sure.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
If you keep repeating overly generic predictions like "you're going to die" for long enough, you're going to be right eventually.
 
The problem of "not finding enough whales" is exactly the same problem as "not finding enough subscribers". The player base itself is so spread out, with a small percentage of loyal players devoted to any particular game (other than WoW) and the rest jumping from game to game, expecting the next one to be bug free and content rich with ongoing development.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
That's a terrible analogy... 
 
F2P games are raking in billions each year. The suggestion that F2P is unsustainable is demonstrably false. Sure we can find a few F2P games that have or will tank; and we will find plenty that won't. The doom and gloom proclamations are unsubstantiated and unwarranted and belie a personal ideology held by the gentleman who made the claims. 
 
We may all not appreciate some predatory forms of F2P; but it's clearly a winning system in many instances; of which SWTOR is just one example. 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I would like to see your reasoning behind it being "demonstrably false". That's a pretty strong claim.
 
To keep the discussion on track: the falling off the building was a counter to the "refuted" statement, not a prediction. The prediction is that the F2P model will not survive if too many games choose it (not enough whales to go around). I look forward to seeing how you "demonstrate" it false.
----
			
please, enough with SWToR. that game isn't free 2 play, not even remotly close.
 
you can't even access half of the base UI features without paying for it, either trough the cash shop or trough the subscription.
 
heck, even with a subscription, a ton of features a still locked away behind the cash shop...
 
SWToR is a prime example of a cash cow.
 
Apparently the game is a success... I didn't like it that much, other people did. is it  because of the star wars franchise? a unique style ( like EVE)? but for the love of god, don't let carbine adopt the SWToR marketing style... next thing you know, if you don't have a subscription you will have to pay to swap your LAS.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
You cited a man claiming  that F2P is inherently unsustainable, I demonstrated that claim to be false using the example of SWTOR; a F2P game that raked in 3/4ths of its development costs (the highest for any game ever until Grand Theft Auto 5) in a single year after going F2P.
 
Links and discussion are above in my posts. clearly showing that SWTOR made 165 million USD in 2013, a number than has only increased through 2014, thus demonstrating that F2P is not only NOT inherently unsustainable, but can be extremely profitable.
 
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
All you did here was show that you don't understand how those two companies' business models incorporate free services as a hook for other business.
 
Barney-style:
 
Adobe gives free software to people to use as much as they want because they know it helps sell their more expensive products.
 
Google gives free services to people because it helps them sell ad space and helps convince other people to upgrade to their paid services.
 
F2P MMOs give free access to their games because it helps them sell subscriptions and cash shop items.
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
What I want from you are solid arguments supporting your view that no matter how large the F2P segment of the game market becomes (even 100%), there will always be enough whales for everyone. 
 
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Ok this is silly now. Compare EA's report from 2012 when SWTOR was Sub only to EA's reports from late 2013 / 2014 ...
 
It should go with out say, that F2P literally saved SWTOR. 
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Sigh.
 
You have demostrated only that F2P works NOW. Everyone knows this.
 
What I want from you are solid arguments supporting your view that no matter how large the F2P segment of the game market becomes (even 100%), there will always be enough whales for everyone. 
 
Because if we come to a point where there are too many F2P games per whale, then game developers who want to make money will have to turn to a new business model - I.E. the F2P bubble pops.
 
Looking forward to a real QED, not disproving something that has not been claimed.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
This is a non-sequitur. F2P does not necessarily rely on 'whales' SWTOR's system is profitable from microtransactions, not whales. 
 
Since you can't actually refute my previous post with out lying about factual statements, it is in fact Q.E.D. 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Oh, OK. So... between 2012 and late 2013/2014, the game fixed tons of launch-related bugs some fairly modest content updates, along with two major content expansions, Rise of the Hutt Cartel and Galactic Starfighter. 
 
By your logic, I would like to posit that new content and bug fixes are what saved SWTOR. Same time window, identical logic. 
 
So no, it doesn't go without saying that F2P literally saved SWTOR.
 
And all due respect to Ohlen, but he didn't provide any actual numbers to back up his narrative, either. So he could easily be making the same "correlation equals causality" mistake that you just made. Indeed, given that he gushes over items that sold well, I would guess that he is--because that's simply not relevant to whether F2P makes money unless the people doing the buying weren't subscribers in the first place.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Your argument is that as the number of MMOs with F2P models compared to those without F2P models approaches 100%, that there will be less profit for the businesses in the industry with F2P models?
 
That's Econ 101. Competition drives down profits. A better question would be whether or not the mass trend will be towards F2P, and which businesses will win if that is the case, and how.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
This is a non-sequitur. F2P does not necessarily rely on 'whales' SWTOR's system is profitable from microtransactions, not whales. 
 
Since you can't actually refute my previous post with out lying about factual statements, it is in fact Q.E.D. 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
I am not saying that. What I am saying is that I believe F2P is going to see diminishing returns in the near future, and if (and that's a big if) Wildstar is struggling economically, it might be a very good idea to explore alternative options other than F2P (such as dropping the box cost and having a solid trial experience).
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
It is not competition per se that I am talking about. It is the survival (or not) of a monetization model. I believe that at some point in the near future, if the trend towards F2P continurs, F2P will no longer be an attractive monetization model.
 
 
I am not saying that. What I am saying is that I believe F2P is going to see diminishing returns in the near future, and if (and that's a big if) Wildstar is struggling economically, it might be a very good idea to explore alternative options other than F2P (such as dropping the box cost and having a solid trial experience).
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
A perpetual trial (like WoW has) is a form of F2P.............
 
many services run a F2P type model, and accrue revenue from other venues than charging users (e.g. advertisement, microtransactions, etc). The F2P type model exists in banking (e.g. free checking with microtransations for withdrawl, min.balance, etc), internet video / media (advertisement revenue), and in most areas of our economy. As a system, it is unlikely to go away anytime in the near or mid future.
 
 
 
Yup, we know
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
You admitted yourself that much of the 165 million SWTOR made in 2013 came from microtransactions........................
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
WoW is not a form of F2P, a trial to level 20 is not F2P.  It's a trial. You really need to get your definitions straight.
 
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
So no, it doesn't go without saying that F2P literally saved SWTOR.
 
And all due respect to Ohlen, but he didn't provide any actual numbers to back up his narrative, either. So he could easily be making the same "correlation equals causality" mistake that you just made. Indeed, given that he gushes over items that sold well, I would guess that he is--because that's simply not relevant to whether F2P makes money unless the people doing the buying weren't subscribers in the first place.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
Your victory lap is directly dependent on the part where you go into my posts and find the spot where I patiently explain to you why you're wrong and replacing it with the word "snip". Last time I checked, that really wasn't actually a valid rebuttal.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
And it's still silly. Not every F2P model relies on 'whales', some rely on other sources of revenue (advertisements), some rely on donations / crowd funding, etc. 
 
your claim is thus non-sequitur; whales are not a part of every F2P system, and so making claims as if they were simply do not follow. 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I don't think it is silly to argue about somthing that is in place for the vast majority of F2P games. I haven't even heard of a single advertising/donation/crowdfunding F2P game, I would really like a few examples outside the indie scene.
 
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I agree in full; but I still pose the assertion to peole who think SWTOR is only successful because it is starwars, to explain SWG. 
 
But yea, fully agree with this post.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
 
So at the end of the day, we're still left with the statement that SWTOR has as its major asset a feature that Wildstar simply does not have and will not be able to rely on, so SWTOR's business model simply isn't relevant to Wildstar.
----
			
When I was reviewing the Star Wars article above it occurred to me that a lot of this fight over subs-vs-F2P is happening because of people holding on to rigid definitions that don't actually apply in reality.  It's fundamentally an excellent idea, business-wise, to have multiple points of entry and multiple types of payment plans for your product or service to match the needs and wishes of your potential customer base. Even WoW, the 900 lb gorilla, no longer has "box-and-sub-or-GTFO" for that game, because it's no good when potential players just GTFO.  I see nothing wrong and a great deal right with a game having multiple payment plans -- a completely free version with limits, a sub version, a premium sub version, a "freemium" version, and a cash shop as well, all coexisting. The object is always to get everyone who might like your product well enough to pay for it to actually shell out for it, and different people have different personal rules for how they like to spend their money.  Why put up walls between your game and your potential players by refusing to offer different payment plans?
 
The main argument against offering different payment plans seems to be that it means the player base gets stratified between, if you will, the haves and the have-nots (or the haves and the have-mores.)  As in, people don't like the idea that someone with more money might have a better/easier game experience than they will. But as Yasfan pointed out, that's already true of CREDD.  I like to craft and found getting started crafting in Wildstar to be quite expensive. My first toon went without a mount for five levels longer than he had to because I wanted to craft. That sucked. If I'd been willing to shell out $20 for CREDD I could have fixed that situation quickly with an infusion of some other player's platinum, right?  That's definitely P2W in terms of crafting, I'd say.  And there has been, and probably will continue to be, rampant "run selling" in every MMO including Wildstar -- "Cash for carry", whether it be game cash or RMT. That's completely P2W.
 
And people with a ton of time on their hands always have an advantage in MMOs -- in fact Wildstar's endgame is (currently) kind of set up that if you don't have a lot of time to invest, you absolutely are a second-class citizen of Nexus. Why, if we're all trying to be on an equal footing as players here, should certain parts of the game only be accessible to people without jobs, families, and other hobbies to spend time on?  
 
So why should MMOs not wholly embrace the notion of having different payment models that work for different types of players?  The cash-strapped college student who downloads your game and plays it in a limited way because it's free and that's what he can afford can change in a short time to a person with a job who is willing to pay a sub instead. If you get him on board with a free version, you at least have the option of selling the full game to him when he's no longer paying tuition; but if he can't afford to buy your box-and-sub game he's never going to get invested in your world at all.  He's lost as a player and customer.  I don't see that as a positive thing. 	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I do understand and fully acknowledge your point that in the grand scheme of f2p, microtransactions are NOT mutually inclusive with F2P (and vice versa) but in SWTOR's case it is, and since thats my example that must be recognized in this specific context.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
The only way in which microtransactions are simply interchangeable with F2P is if everything you could buy with a microtransaction, you get as part of your subscription fee by being a subscriber. That makes it so that there is no reason for a subscriber to ever make a microtransaction.
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
1 second + google 
 
2 seconds + google
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
And how many of these are F2P, as in the company running the servers and developing content continiously is relying on crowdfunding to keep going? 
 
I am actually laughing in real life right now. You accuse me of moving the goalpost and start bringing up evidence of FREE games in a FREE TO PLAY discussion. You really need to work on the definitions.
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
 
So at the end of the day, we're still left with the statement that SWTOR has as its major asset a feature that Wildstar simply does not have and will not be able to rely on
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
(Completely off-topic: how long before we see a Harry Potter MMORPG?)  
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/03/10/the-world-of-magic-aims-to-take-over-for-the-harry-potter-mmo/
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I am lumping F2P games with F2P games, exactly what we are discussing. My definitions are fine, as is my hearty and expansive diction; but thanks for the concern.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
A lot of the games on that list you linked are not F2P games, but crowdfunded games with no recurring cost for the developer. I'm curious how you put them in the F2P category. Could you share your definition of F2P for future reference?
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I don't think there is a strong sense of honesty in this back and forth. I've seen folks try and move the goalposts, argue non-sequitur, and toss in condescension for bad measure.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
You have been using red herrings and strawmen from square one, relying on obviously out-of-context intepretations to poke holes in things I'm not saying. So yes, I agree fully. As for condescension....
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
What are you talking about? As a Sub to SWTOR I have never had to pay for anything besides my sub and box price. As a Subscriber you are GIVEN cartel coins each month. You never have to pay microtransactions as a sub to get something in the game or experience the full content. So this statement is simply false, subs need not pay any microtransactions to get anything or any content in the game.
 
----
			Hell no to F2Phttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MLry6Cn_D4	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
You're given some number of cartel coins as part of your sub. So you never actually HAVE to buy more Cartel coins than you get in your subscription. But it turns out that a subscriber can pull out a credit card and buy more of them just like a non-subscriber can.
 
You never would, of course, unless the things that are only available to you through Cartel-shop exclusives cost more cartel coins than you're given as part of your subscription. This may explain why so very many items in SWTOR's cartel shop are explicitly advertised as Cartel-shop exclusives. And why Cartel Packs offer you a chance at winning a particular item without actually just giving it to you for a transparent price.   
 
So the fact that you never paid for a Cartel coin when subscribed to SWTOR makes you a lot like a subscriber who's never bought CREDD here. You chose not to give the game additional revenue in the form of microtransactions. But you could've, and other subscribers assuredly do.
 
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
That's a fairly vacuous claim; would love an example :)
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
The article I referenced talked about the unsustainability of microtransaction F2P.
 
From that and context (we are on a MMO forum) it should be obvious that I am not predicting the end of all possible past, present and future models of F2P. Really, it's not rocket science. You have to be wilfully blind or looking to build a strawman to go so wildly out of scope as you have.
 
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I have solidly dissembled the notion that as a model F2P is not sustainable using SWTOR as an example of widely successful F2P, and I leave it to the judgement of the readers as to which of us is being honest in our points. 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Again with the red herring. The author of the article and I are talking about the future. I have already said that there are many examples of F2P working now. You keep dragging this up, and you call me dishonest?
 
As for the author of the article, there is nothing indicating that the scope of the article includes anything but microtransaction, since he speaks of economic factors that are out of context for other models.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I agree in full; but your earlier point was that microtransactions were only 'part of' F2P if a subscriber didn't also need to make them to get everything in the game; which is true of SWTOR, and ergo even by your definition microtransactions in SWTOR are part of the F2P model they use. 
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
SWTOR did not have to introduce the Cartel Market at the same time they introduced F2P. The fact that they did doesn't mean that they had to.
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
You need more money from one whale than you need from one subscriber.
 
A subscriber pays $15. A whale must pay not only $15 for himself, but also pay for a number of free players. So if one in five players actually pay, and 4 of 5 players play for free, each whale must bring in $75. The higher the ratio of free players to whales go, the more money is needed from whales to kep the game running.
 
I would argue that it is easier to find a subscriber than a whale.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
But they did; their F2P model was built around the Cartel Market. They could have done an infinite number of things but they only ACTUALLY did one thing; built a F2P model around a cash shop. SWTOR made 139 million USD from the cash shop in 2013 (link below); a cash shop that only exists as part of the games F2P transition. Your suggestion that the addition of the F2P cash shop doesn't count as F2P saving SWTOR because subscribers can also chose to make purchases from the shop even though they are granted currency to do so for no extra cost is simply false. Had the transition to F2P not occured and been intentionally based around the cash shop, SWTOR would have failed. 
 
That's all there is to it, you and I both know that, and you and I both know that if Subs alone could have kept SWTOR profitable they wouldn't have had to transition the game to F2P.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
 
 
 
Was what you posted; and frankly your numbers are incorrect. in 2013 around 139 million USD was made via the Cartel Market .
 
Is that it?
 
I can hear Blizzard laughing from here LOL
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
What I know is that you're still trying to credit purchases made by subscribers as due to F2P, just as you've done for several posts now. They are not, for reasons I've described in multiple posts now. Not all purchases at the cash shop are de facto F2P because cash shops are not F2P. The cash shop was rolled out at the same time as F2P was implemented. That does not make it the "F2P cash shop" no matter how much you want it to be.
 
For someone as finicky about definitions as you are, I'm finding your confusion of vocabulary and inability to make distinctions here pretty hilarious.
 
----
			Yes to B2P.And basically at this point, yes to free to play.It's the ONLY viable solution to bring people back in and/or bring new peopz in.Either that or the game will die and get burried in a matter of weeks.	
----