<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Online Gamers Playing More, But Paying Less: Report</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2009/06/15/online-gamers-paying-more-but-buying-less/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/06/15/online-gamers-paying-more-but-buying-less/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:53:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: renaissance chambara alias Ged Carroll - Links of the day</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/06/15/online-gamers-paying-more-but-buying-less/#comment-214161</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[renaissance chambara alias Ged Carroll - Links of the day]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:01:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=54302#comment-214161</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Online Gamers Playing More, But Paying Less: Report [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Online Gamers Playing More, But Paying Less: Report [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/06/15/online-gamers-paying-more-but-buying-less/#comment-214160</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ken]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:06:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=54302#comment-214160</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s always difficult to assess online games and their success right away. One big problem as you guys have noted is you can&#039;t always go based on the subscriber base. In a way, game subscriptions are a lot like the gym business. They get people to sign up (especially the &quot;traditional&quot; MMO model of giving away the first thirty days) then people let their credit cards get dinged for a little while until they realize they&#039;re not playing anymore and they ditch. Sure the company&#039;s still making money but it&#039;s due to inertia which just prolongs the feeling that they&#039;re succeeding when in fact they&#039;re failing.

I remember a statistic from the gym business where they added 1.7 million members in a year...but lost 1.4 million. I liken it to baling out a sinking boat. You&#039;re doing enough work to stay afloat but just barely. Might be better to fix the hole and stop wasting time trying to just stay afloat.

As far as the &quot;report&quot;, I think it&#039;s no coincidence that the source of the report is Future Ads as Wagner touched on. It doesn&#039;t take an analyst or a research firm to tell you that three fundamental truths are always going to be at work in online gaming:

1) People want to be entertained, especially when times are tough.

2) People don&#039;t want to pay a lot of money for said entertainment.

3) People are extremely fickle when it comes to entertainment.

All the non-free-to-play games out there are going to suffer a bit but depending on how invested the gamer is you&#039;re not going to see mass exoduses away from WoW or the like. Casual games by their nature will see a lot of churn (you make a game that&#039;s easy to drop into and start playing...it&#039;s going to be easy to leave too). Kids games are already well-known to be very fluid market. Kids whims change even faster and all it takes is for a couple of friends to hit the next big/fun game out there and you&#039;ve lost another 5-10 accounts.

The reality, in my mind at least, is that this is a great period for someone to deliver a solid game with a lot of perceived value. The real danger for the game industry as a whole is the feeling that they need to reduce prices or give away their products in order to sell in this climate. That&#039;s a mistake. Sure, people don&#039;t want to pay $60-70 for a console game (I never got this concept...always $10-20 more than a PC game for a platform with less customer service issues to worry about since the configs are the same and a larger market) but free-to-play only works if you have a really compelling reason for people to dive into the microtransactions you&#039;re hoping to make money on (don&#039;t even talk to me about advertising in games). I think a couple companies are going to make this mistake before the recession starts to turn.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s always difficult to assess online games and their success right away. One big problem as you guys have noted is you can&#8217;t always go based on the subscriber base. In a way, game subscriptions are a lot like the gym business. They get people to sign up (especially the &#8220;traditional&#8221; MMO model of giving away the first thirty days) then people let their credit cards get dinged for a little while until they realize they&#8217;re not playing anymore and they ditch. Sure the company&#8217;s still making money but it&#8217;s due to inertia which just prolongs the feeling that they&#8217;re succeeding when in fact they&#8217;re failing.</p>
<p>I remember a statistic from the gym business where they added 1.7 million members in a year&#8230;but lost 1.4 million. I liken it to baling out a sinking boat. You&#8217;re doing enough work to stay afloat but just barely. Might be better to fix the hole and stop wasting time trying to just stay afloat.</p>
<p>As far as the &#8220;report&#8221;, I think it&#8217;s no coincidence that the source of the report is Future Ads as Wagner touched on. It doesn&#8217;t take an analyst or a research firm to tell you that three fundamental truths are always going to be at work in online gaming:</p>
<p>1) People want to be entertained, especially when times are tough.</p>
<p>2) People don&#8217;t want to pay a lot of money for said entertainment.</p>
<p>3) People are extremely fickle when it comes to entertainment.</p>
<p>All the non-free-to-play games out there are going to suffer a bit but depending on how invested the gamer is you&#8217;re not going to see mass exoduses away from WoW or the like. Casual games by their nature will see a lot of churn (you make a game that&#8217;s easy to drop into and start playing&#8230;it&#8217;s going to be easy to leave too). Kids games are already well-known to be very fluid market. Kids whims change even faster and all it takes is for a couple of friends to hit the next big/fun game out there and you&#8217;ve lost another 5-10 accounts.</p>
<p>The reality, in my mind at least, is that this is a great period for someone to deliver a solid game with a lot of perceived value. The real danger for the game industry as a whole is the feeling that they need to reduce prices or give away their products in order to sell in this climate. That&#8217;s a mistake. Sure, people don&#8217;t want to pay $60-70 for a console game (I never got this concept&#8230;always $10-20 more than a PC game for a platform with less customer service issues to worry about since the configs are the same and a larger market) but free-to-play only works if you have a really compelling reason for people to dive into the microtransactions you&#8217;re hoping to make money on (don&#8217;t even talk to me about advertising in games). I think a couple companies are going to make this mistake before the recession starts to turn.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel James</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/06/15/online-gamers-paying-more-but-buying-less/#comment-214159</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel James]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:22:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=54302#comment-214159</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Aye aye. Echoing Rick&#039;s point; 3M registered users is not a particularly useful metric. Sony has obviously spent a *lot* on launch marketing for Free Realms -- it&#039;s still plastered all over most of the Flash / kids games portals and for a while had takeovers etc. I&#039;d estimate at least a $5M launch marketing budget (which is not necessarily a bad idea for what I would guess is a $20M+ game), so you&#039;d expect a good few million registrations from that.

That said, the registration process takes place in Flash ahead of the 70MB download and install, which makes me suspect that a large number of accounts never actually played. I&#039;m afraid I think your 10% guess is very optimistic, too, but you never know! Stranger things have happened at sea.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aye aye. Echoing Rick&#8217;s point; 3M registered users is not a particularly useful metric. Sony has obviously spent a *lot* on launch marketing for Free Realms &#8212; it&#8217;s still plastered all over most of the Flash / kids games portals and for a while had takeovers etc. I&#8217;d estimate at least a $5M launch marketing budget (which is not necessarily a bad idea for what I would guess is a $20M+ game), so you&#8217;d expect a good few million registrations from that.</p>
<p>That said, the registration process takes place in Flash ahead of the 70MB download and install, which makes me suspect that a large number of accounts never actually played. I&#8217;m afraid I think your 10% guess is very optimistic, too, but you never know! Stranger things have happened at sea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will Robertson</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/06/15/online-gamers-paying-more-but-buying-less/#comment-214158</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Will Robertson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:11:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=54302#comment-214158</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Maybe OnLive can change this! I just wrote a report on the company for a course I am taking. I found that IF their system does work well, performance-wise, they could really shake up the gaming industry. This always connected type of game opens up some more revenue streams to traditional game publishers too. Many more opportunities for in game advertising.

Once all games are considered &quot;online&quot; I think the lines between the two will be very blurred.
							OH! You&#039;re my new favorite blogger fyi]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe OnLive can change this! I just wrote a report on the company for a course I am taking. I found that IF their system does work well, performance-wise, they could really shake up the gaming industry. This always connected type of game opens up some more revenue streams to traditional game publishers too. Many more opportunities for in game advertising.</p>
<p>Once all games are considered &#8220;online&#8221; I think the lines between the two will be very blurred.<br />
							OH! You&#8217;re my new favorite blogger fyi</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will Robertson</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/06/15/online-gamers-paying-more-but-buying-less/#comment-214157</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Will Robertson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 04:16:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=54302#comment-214157</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Maybe OnLive can change this! I just wrote a report on the company for a course I am taking. I found that IF their system does work well, performance-wise, they could really shake up the gaming industry. This always connected type of game opens up some more revenue streams to traditional game publishers too. Many more opportunities for in game advertising.

Once all games are considered &quot;online&quot; I think the lines between the two will be very blurred.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe OnLive can change this! I just wrote a report on the company for a course I am taking. I found that IF their system does work well, performance-wise, they could really shake up the gaming industry. This always connected type of game opens up some more revenue streams to traditional game publishers too. Many more opportunities for in game advertising.</p>
<p>Once all games are considered &#8220;online&#8221; I think the lines between the two will be very blurred.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rick</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/06/15/online-gamers-paying-more-but-buying-less/#comment-214156</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rick]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:30:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=54302#comment-214156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Remember, though, that many of the free to play MMOs sees some account created and then abandoned after the person decides the game&#039;s not for them. In the case of freerealms some of those 3m accounts will never be logged into again. It&#039;s as if Blizzard counted the 10 day trial accounts as accounts even though some percentage of those people don&#039;t continue past the trial period.

What will be interesting is to see if free games can attract enough scale and get enough revenue to justify continued development. If not, then they&#039;ll expand, hit a ceiling and slowly die as the company can&#039;t justify creating new content for them.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Remember, though, that many of the free to play MMOs sees some account created and then abandoned after the person decides the game&#8217;s not for them. In the case of freerealms some of those 3m accounts will never be logged into again. It&#8217;s as if Blizzard counted the 10 day trial accounts as accounts even though some percentage of those people don&#8217;t continue past the trial period.</p>
<p>What will be interesting is to see if free games can attract enough scale and get enough revenue to justify continued development. If not, then they&#8217;ll expand, hit a ceiling and slowly die as the company can&#8217;t justify creating new content for them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
