Free to play, pay for perks.

[CutterJohn]

Lets pretend PSN is free to play, and that there is no premium subscription. Meaning the game supports itself with a store you can buy stuff from. This is my assumption for how its going to go, as the subscription thing didn't really work out last time. :)


-Extra character slots
-A character on server in another empire
-Access to the other empire specific weapons or vehicles. This could be a package deal or per item.
-Higher battle ranks
-New weapons, items, vehicles, or implants, but not necessarily better ones.
-Alternately, earlier access to those things as they are introduced
-Glamor items, like the sword, unlocking uniform colors or special uniforms/helmets/goggles!
-K/D meter. :lol:
-Outfit insignia/flags
-Named outfit bases
-Rankings on ingame leaderboards.
-Beamer that shoots OSes(Costs $100,000 :rofl:)

Which do you think are appropriate/inappropriate, and what else can you think of?

[Aractain]

What about an alternative leveling system that gives 'perks' instead of certs as certs should be left alone and not alterted by cash at all as they are the 'core' of the game.

This system could be leveled with 'points' which is converted from XP once you hit cap. Alternatively you could just buy the points with real money to speed up this obvious grind system.

What that system could be is a 'talent tree' like system that gives 'perks' to your character that arn't big nor are they going to change a one vs one fight.
Things like reload speed, magazine size, inventory size or maybe bigger things like a chest holster (medium sized only no HA/AV) or the ability to drop in a vehicle (not an AMS?) once every 30 minuets.

Definately NOT things like accuracy, fire speed, health, armour etc.

Also I really want to see decals/paint jobs on vehicles. Doubt it will ever happen but just look at APB. Even a tiny bit of that would be awesome. Not to mention having enviroment matched camoflauge (as in white/grey for snow etc) on your infantry armour, your guns and your vehicles.

Theres a lot of stuff you could create to buy but I really don't think SOE are thinking this far ahead (please prove me wrong Smed).

[DviddLeff]

I would instigate a system where there are a variety of payment methods:


Free Trial through Steam account: Maximum BR6, CR0, Cannot lead squads
Box/one time fee purchased only: Maximum BR10, CR3
Subscription: Maximum BR 20, CR5.


Once a player has been subscribed for three continuous years, they get to carry on without paying further subscriptions.

Alternatively players could spend the equivalent of a years subscription to become a lifetime member, with the same opportunities of a subscribed player, but no recurring cost.

[JayC]

The buying of currency in any form is a big no no! There were enough ChinaSider's on this game without them selling a million credits on eBay!

[Jonny]

They should just have a high box price, like 50-60 quid and no monthly fee, but maby some micro transactions for aesthetic things.

I really think it should be free to play, as gamers are less willing to put up with monthly fee's now from greedy developers - look at APB and Global Agenda.

From my point of view, I don't want to feel like I cant play a game I like one month because I havn't paid that month. Or then if I do pay for a month, then feel like I should pay more to get my monies worth, when I have alot of other commitments in life.

I have always thought that stuff like blizzards WOW is criminal how much they charge and how much money they make from one product. Many companies out there sell games then offer free updates for a long time as part of the good will of service.

With possible micro transactions (not saying i particularly like them) people can support the company in small ways for something in return, but be able to own the right to play the game any time.

:)

[Lartnev]

Hats.... it worked for Team Fortess 2 ;)

Seriously, assuming it's a micro transaction system: Character slots is a good one, as is custom insignias. Perhaps additional emotes or different voices - stuff that makes your characters or outfits more unique but doesn't detract from the fact you're waging war.

I agree with Aractain that anything that improves the player's abilities should be taboo.

[Grimster]

Yeah sure I am all for micro transactions as long as they don't give you an edge in the game. For example better gear, implants weapons or armor.

[Jonny]

Yeah sure I am all for micro transactions as long as they don't give you an edge in the game. For example better gear, implants weapons or armor.

Agree with you there.

[Firefly]

Leave it as a paid sub. Adding free shit is usually done poorly and with no eye towards security. As I understand it, free accounts in PS led to lots of hacking, amirite?

If for some reason they find it necessary to allow free access, even as trial players, there need to be some serious restraints. They also need to make sure accounts can't just be easily created. AND NO FUCKING ECONOMY. AT ALL.

Case in point: Warhammer Online. They opened up the game due to failing subscription levels. Anyone could play up to level 10. You could create a free trial that never ended. You could create an infinite amount. There was no email confirmation, nothing. You could literally type "asdf lkjh" as your name and "asd@asd" as your email and five seconds later you could be playing.

Now because this game had an economy and it had levels, there were all sorts of Engrish-speaking little spamming dick-suckers, INCESSANTLY, over and over, clogging up public chat and private tells and in-game mails with gold-spam and powerleveling services. CSRs couldn't keep up with the spammers because you ban one, they come right back on another account. And they're macro-programs, so it's not like there's a guy sitting there going "damn my fingers are tired".

[CutterJohn]

Free to play doesn't necessarily mean free, period. A guild wars model is certainly viable. Purchase the game but its free to play after. And I highly doubt they will go with a subscription based model, as thats a huge turn off for more casual FPS players. Planetside doesn't have the carrot on a stick hooks that an RPG does to keep people playing, and suffers doubly because it needs a strong population to be viable.

Plus subscriptions seriously hamper hopping in and playing on odd occasions. Over the years when I was unsubbed I would have played the game off and on. But I didn't play enough to warrant $15 for a few hours. So I didn't play. PSN will not really be an improvement if it doesn't support casual play like that.

Yeah sure I am all for micro transactions as long as they don't give you an edge in the game. For example better gear, implants weapons or armor.

In a perfect world, yeah. But if they do go the microtransaction route to support the game, the benefits of giving them money are going to have to be strong enough to get people to actually give them money. Silly hats may not be enough.

[Bags]

I propose --
Free Trial: BR 6 / CR 0 max. Lowest priority for continent queues.

Then, everyone pays $20 - $50 for game then:

Paid sub: BR 25(20?), CR5. Highest priority for continent queues.
($15/mo, $14/3mo, $13/6mo...)
Free Sub: BR 10 / CR 2 max. Second lowest priority for locked continents.

Requires legit CC and email to free sub / trial.
----


No other in-game micro transactions should be accepted by the community or PSN will end up as a Sci-Fi themed hat simulator similar to TF2. I can't believe you honestly suggested that you could get a higher BR by paying. Not only does that go against money = power, but BR 40 is partially the reason PS is a steaming cesspool right now, as everyone has extra certs for maxes and special assault.

I'm fine with microtransactions = more character slots, named outfit bases, and outfit flags. Most of your suggestions however should be free (leaderboards, K/D ratio, rankings, access to items) or shouldn't be available at all. (Increased BR, other faction's weapons, "Glamor items", beamers)


I have always thought that stuff like blizzards WOW is criminal how much they charge and how much money they make from one product. Many companies out there sell games then offer free updates for a long time as part of the good will of service.


You're joking right? You do know how many servers Blizzard has and how much they and their upkeep cost, right? Maintenance, upgrades, utilities, salaries etc. Sorry if you're poor enough that $15 is a criminal amount for 30 days of video game access.

I'm interested, can you tell me how much money Blizzard makes from WoW, since you're so well informed? I'm not talking about sales revenue.

[CutterJohn]

And what BR do unsubbed characters get? Revert to 6?

Not really seeing the animosity. People say don't pay for microtransactions, but if there are, nothing that helps you. But subs for battle ranks are fine? Pretty sure those help. More certs keeps you more viable at more points in the game.

Subs do keep it simple, but I also really like the idea of playing when I feel like it.

[Bags]

And what BR do unsubbed characters get? Revert to 6?

Not really seeing the animosity. People say don't pay for microtransactions, but if there are, nothing that helps you. But subs for battle ranks are fine? Pretty sure those help. More certs keeps you more viable at more points in the game.

Subs do keep it simple, but I also really like the idea of playing when I feel like it.

How about if you forget to pay your sub you're reset to BR10/CR2 until you pay.

Yes... paying for the game should get you the full package. Fodderside was the most amazing time I ever got to play the game; good pops.

Everyone who pays hits the same cap is my point. I don't want to have to pay an extra $5/mo to be BR25 because everyone else is.

Trials are capped because it leaves you wanting more. You can only do so much at BR10, and if you actually like the game you'll sub for the full package. However, if you're like my brother; cheap, won't play that much, for free + game you get a decent amount of certs and you can actually play.

Microtransactions for the most part are used as excuses by companies to charge for things that should be free or that do not help you in game (in wow you can buy race change / faction change / server change. Race change does help you, but ONLY BECAUSE blizzard cannot balance racials. The rest do not affect your gameplay once you're online) for the $15/mo.

[Rbstr]

I hate microtransaction systems when they have a real impact on the game mechanics...I'm cool with purchasable "bling" and systems that let you buy things with money or get them through the game.

I'd much rather have a monthly fee, but to me that means you need to really support the game. Not charge more if you add new content, and just take better care of your game in general. (I know I bring up EVE too much, but they're constantly expanding the game, and never charging you more than the monthly fee for it...I think that's why it doesn't exhibit the typical peak-bust cycle of MMOs)

[Grimster]

In a perfect world, yeah. But if they do go the microtransaction route to support the game, the benefits of giving them money are going to have to be strong enough to get people to actually give them money. Silly hats may not be enough.


Well to be honest, in my opinion they should keep the subscription model but thats not stopping them from having micro transactions also in forms of for example custom title, custom logo maybe different types of armors(visually) with of course empire colors.

I mean that way they are not dependent on micro transactions but they can still have them in the game available for those who are willing to pay money to for example get a different look on their character.

[Lartnev]

(I know I bring up EVE too much, but they're constantly expanding the game, and never charging you more than the monthly fee for it...I think that's why it doesn't exhibit the typical peak-bust cycle of MMOs)

Well EVE also has PLEX, EON, and their online merchandise store for a little extra income, but CCP is awesome for what you get for your subscription. :)

[Bags]

So why do you guys want to have to pay for outfit features anyway? Sony owes us big time.

[Jonny]

You're joking right? You do know how many servers Blizzard has and how much they and their upkeep cost, right? Maintenance, upgrades, utilities, salaries etc. Sorry if you're poor enough that $15 is a criminal amount for 30 days of video game access.

I'm interested, can you tell me how much money Blizzard makes from WoW, since you're so well informed? I'm not talking about sales revenue.

No i'm not really joking...because they have loads of subscribers they're probably making more than the GDP of a small country. I doubt paying staff and keeping servers going needs that kind of money.

I'm not saying im well informed, but from a quick google search: "With more than 12 million subscribers as of October 2010,[11] World of Warcraft is currently the world's most-subscribed MMORPG,[9][12][13] and holds the Guinness World Record for the most popular MMORPG by subscribers." - thats from wikipedia.

So this could be wide of the mark, but 12 million (subscribers) x £8.99 monthly subscription is over 100 million pounds a month.

To me, thats kind of criminal as players can end up spending hundreds - to maby a thousand on one game. That game's also known for being very addictive due to its leveling and strong identification with the forms of weapons, character upgrades etc that seem endless. An online ego fest.

[Bags]

No i'm not really joking...because they have loads of subscribers they're probably making more than the GDP of a small country. I doubt paying staff and keeping servers going needs that kind of money.

I'm not saying im well informed, but from a quick google search: "With more than 12 million subscribers as of October 2010,[11] World of Warcraft is currently the world's most-subscribed MMORPG,[9][12][13] and holds the Guinness World Record for the most popular MMORPG by subscribers." - thats from wikipedia.

So this could be wide of the mark, but 12 million (subscribers) x £8.99 monthly subscription is over 100 million pounds a month.

To me, thats kind of criminal as players can end up spending hundreds - to maby a thousand on one game. That game's also known for being very addictive due to its leveling and strong identification with the forms of weapons, character upgrades etc that seem endless. An online ego fest.

First off -- almost half of those 12 million are from China, who do not pay using the same $15/month model as the rest of us.

Secondly, you forget that a lot of people buy their subscription in bulk. IE; they don't pay $15/mo, but more like $14 - 12/mo.

Thirdly, you don't have any proof to back up your assumptions. For all you know they break even with $15/mo from each player.

And lastly, $15/mo is an amazing deal for the entertainment value of MMOS. Or do you not see movies?

[Jonny]

Yeah but still, cut that 100 million in half, then say 10 million less from people buying subs in bulk, and thats still 480 million a year from people just playing a game.

Entertainment value is great if your playing all the time i guess, but some people only want to play afew hours a week and not pay for that in a game they've already bought. Anyhow, why do MMO's require this monthly fee jazz when there are shooters out there with loads of servers that don't?

[morf]

If there is no subscription then what is their motivation to continue development? Microtransactions will inevitable be either near useless, or they will create a divide between haves and have nots. I want a game to play for years to come. Subscription gives soe an incentive to work to keep my business.

[Aractain]

Lets remember the core issue: Players. They want them. Other players want them. All of them. All the time.

The lack of internet connections (I signed up the day I got my broadband installed) and the sub fee killed planetside (I think more people played beta than actually bought the game at release?).

The sub fee is STILL a big issue with several groups. Obviously the COD crowd are not okay with it (they are okay with buy map packs - not okay with subs). The 'casual' crowd (this is big money in other MMOs) generally hop in a few times a week but often have stretches where they don't play for a month. Having that sub knawing at thier mind will often lead to a cancel and resubbing is a high barrier of entry without a promotion.

Free 2 play gets players and well designed systems keep players. It has the added benfit of people never really quitting so big patches can often bring people back to check it out since its 'free'.

Just don't do an Aglagon (whatever).

[Bags]

Yeah but still, cut that 100 million in half, then say 10 million less from people buying subs in bulk, and thats still 480 million a year from people just playing a game.

Entertainment value is great if your playing all the time i guess, but some people only want to play afew hours a week and not pay for that in a game they've already bought. Anyhow, why do MMO's require this monthly fee jazz when there are shooters out there with loads of servers that don't?

Servers are hosted by communities in most shooters.

[bjorntju1]

I'd like a monthly subscription the most. If they keep supporting the game like EVE i'd gladly pay €15,- a month for it.

[Sirisian]

If anything the system I'd prefer would be 15 dollars a month credit card only. Then free trials that are tied to a credit card with a limited battle rank and not CR. Simple and works for everyone.

[morf]

I don't understand people saying high box price and microtransactions. The last thing we need is a high box price. The threshold to owning this game should be as low as possible to encourage people to try it out. You can't reel in a fish until you get the hook in. And microtransactions will either A. Screw up game balance or B. Be so useless that no one buys them. People are naysaying subscriptions but the bottom line is SOE's job is to make the game so compelling that we feel like we are getting a good deal for our sub fee. That's what I want to see: a game that is so good I will gladly pay 15 a month without thinking twice.

[CutterJohn]

That's what I want to see: a game that is so good I will gladly pay 15 a month without thinking twice.

Thats my worry though.. Obviously it will probably be worth the sub fee for the first months or so, but as you keep playing, it will eventually get stale, and you'll play less. This is inevitable. No game will have you wanting to play forever. And subsequently you'll play little enough that you question the sub fee. And then you're in the position that you want to play occasionally, but not at $15 a month, so you just drop it and put the game aside.

How many people would still boot up PS and play it occasionally if they didn't have to pay the sub because the money was coming from other things? I know I would. I'm sure lots of others would be as well.

I dunno. Maybe they could work out a system of, in addition to subs, prepaid minutes or something. That could work. I still think the most ideal model is one that doesn't involve a subscription based service.

[Bags]

I played the original planetside fairly steadily for two years. Even if you only get on five to ten hours a week it's still some of the best $ / entertainment value.

I really don't know anyone who is as cheap as you, John. (no offense) A few years ago I would have agreed with you but WoW has 12 million subscribers, many of which have FPS backgrounds (thought not quite as extensive as a lot of PSers). People are more willing to pay microtransactions and monthly subs in this day in age. (Just look at how popular $1 apps are)

Playing 24/7 isn't the only way to get your $15's worth.

[CutterJohn]

I wasn't talking 5 or ten hours a week. More like 5 or 10 hours a month or less. Its not that I'm cheap(your skills at judging peoples attributes are subpar), its that I'm open to different ideas of making the game work. I just feel that subscriptions don't particularly fill the needs of an fps, and wanted to use this thread to explore ideas for maintaining the game in a nontraditional manner. Then it got derailed on if its even a good idea or not.

[Aractain]

Another thing to remember is that people play different games. If they need to put down a sub for say WoW which they play with thier friends they probably won't also have another MMO subscribed (and PS is exactly the sort of fun diversion a WoW type player needs when they get burnt out on progression raids or farming for air).

For any game that aims to be less than the conerstone of your play time, Free to play is perfect. Yes.. bad things can happen - but did a subscription stop BFRs? Flails?

[morf]

But the whole idea behind paying a sub fee is continued development so that it doesn't get stale. It's quid pro quo here. We pay in exchange for a game that will have active development to keep us engaged. Without the pay, whatf is the motivation to keep us happy, and where does the funding come from for continued development?

[Sifer2]

If SOE is reading this. I do not believe Item Shop is the way to go. In the west at least many people are still very opposed to it as they do not like the idea of you buying ingame advantages. This would be even more so in a skill based game like Planetside.

That said a free to play option of some kind is probably a good idea. Something like the Reserves only requiring a credit card so hackers can't keep making new accounts. Reserves might only go up to a certain BR rank but can purchase additional certs permanently for a one time fee. An if you sub for enough months you also unlock some of this stuff permanently.

Then throw in some extra perks for subscribers. Nothing too overpowered though. But stuff like Orbital Strike I could see that being a subscriber only ability.

[CutterJohn]

many people are still very opposed to it as they do not like the idea of you buying ingame advantages

but can purchase additional certs permanently for a one time fee

An if you sub for enough months you also unlock some of this stuff permanently

Then throw in some extra perks for subscribers ... like Orbital Strike ..


So basically, to sum up your argument.. You are against buying in game advantages, so instead of being allowed to buy in game advantages, you can instead buy in game advantages, because in game advantages are unfair and poorly received, so we should just be able to buy in game advantages instead.

This is what I find frustrating, how people just disregard the argument because they have a bad impression of it from some of the more egregious(and the minority) of examples, yet reveal they are actually fine with the concept so long as its framed slightly differently.

Oh well. I suppose I'll stop trying on this, it seems rather unpopular. Still, I love the way guild wars does business.

[klu]

i think free trials are ok as long as there is active moderation to prevent abuse by hackers. if they do go with a monthly subscription, one way to keep casual players around could be to sell smaller chunks of time that dont expire (by the hour or by the day)

[Jonny]

On the note of "continued development", I'd like to know more. I've never played an 'MMO' so I don't know what this involves, but it would have to be something like each player felt the developer was putting in something for their money each month.

Didn't planetside get updates, but then an expansion you had to buy? How does that work?

I just think in this climate, many people would prefer buying optional and aesthetic extras, or sidegrade weapons etc than a monthly fee. Whoever made the point about WOW players and people playing other sub games was right - they wouldnt want to pay 2 subs but may check out a free to play game and then get involved.

And there's no need to call people cheap Bags as you don't know people situations/their income and outgoings.

[2coolforu]

Microtransactions have always failed.

The either don't give a player enough for a transactionm in which case the game doesn't have enough money to run servers and collapses - this is the best case

The second fail is that the microtransactions do far too much, or even just slightly too much and people who have money to burn are put at an advantage that is just far too great to compete with and the skill of the game (which is what makes games fun) is ruined.

No, just leave it as sub, it works and is the tried and tested model for MMO's. A microtransaction model is just a bad idea.

£7.50/ month subscription will be fine

[Lartnev]

On the note of "continued development", I'd like to know more. I've never played an 'MMO' so I don't know what this involves, but it would have to be something like each player felt the developer was putting in something for their money each month.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/ps/timeline.php

Didn't planetside get updates, but then an expansion you had to buy? How does that work?

Let's say you have two development teams: the first delivers new content, fixes, and improvements as part of the subscription fee. New content is added slowly since it has to be balanced against other development activities. Then you have a second team which is financed via expansion pack sales which focuses exclusively on new content.

Microtransactions have always failed.

Just because they have always failed doesn't mean they will always fail. :shrug:

[DviddLeff]

Not seen that timeline Lartnev, thanks for linking it.

[ArcticPrism]

There is no such thing as free to play. There is only free to play pay to win. Everytime a F2P game is made it always starts out with cosmetic things and such. At some point the developers realize that selling power = much more profit.

[Rbstr]

If I'm paying a subscription, I shouldn't get charged for expansions and new content.

If CCP can do it SOE should be able to (hell, even buying the game for $20 includes a month subscription, so "box sales" don't really even help). They only run one server but it carries far more people concurrently than any other given MMO shard out there. If you can support 60k online at once and deliver free expansions, I don't see how SOE can't do the same with PS.

[Bags]

Er, wasn't the xpac free? I don't remember ever buying it.

[DviddLeff]

I think they charged for Core Combat, but Aftershock was free?

[Lartnev]

I think they charged for Core Combat, but Aftershock was free?

Correct, Core Combat was a paid expansion pack. Aftershock was just a relaunch of PlanetSide when BFRs were released.

[Infektion]

I'd like a monthly subscription the most. If they keep supporting the game like EVE i'd gladly pay €15,- a month for it.

The hamsters that power the eve servers are constantly dying due to fatigue. CCP is constantly running out, trying to find a decent replacement and then trains it. This is what causes their average downtime.:rofl:

[Ant001]

Free to play = Hacked to fuck.
Make em pay monthly and it keeps a lot of hackers away.

[TheRagingGerbil]

The model I'm hoping for...

$9.99 on Steam gets you the client plus 30-days

$14.99/mo

$37.48/3mo (0.5 mo free, $12.49/mo)

$67.46/6mo (1.5 mo free, $11.24/mo)

$97.44/yr (3.5 mo free, $8.12/mo)

[TRex]

If they added any sort of free to play model , I would go look for something else to play . The whole idea of ftp is extortionate in practice. £9 a month is cheap compared to what some pay for all their ' perks' , it disgusts me .
I tried Atlantica online a while back, and there were people spending £100's for stupid RNG boxes in the hope of getting something unique or what they wanted. Sure, you can play for free, and at first it sucks you in with that idea . But then you soon realise to actually play the game at any sort of basic level of satisfaction you have to shell out more than your average sub just for a modicum level of enjoyment.
''warpgate package £5-allows you to use warpgates in ps for 30 days -£7 for exclusive 60 day offer only for next 24 hrs''
'' buy the exclusive all access pass to planetside, allows you access to all the available continents including the 3 continents allowed with the inital normal game -£10 special offer -now you too can join all your friends who play on Amerish , the elite continent for the pro's''

[Infektion]

If I'm paying a subscription, I shouldn't get charged for expansions and new content.

If CCP can do it SOE should be able to (hell, even buying the game for $20 includes a month subscription, so "box sales" don't really even help). They only run one server but it carries far more people concurrently than any other given MMO shard out there. If you can support 60k online at once and deliver free expansions, I don't see how SOE can't do the same with PS.

wow... if you honestly think that they only run one server, then you are the biggest idiot I've ever heard talk about CCP.

[morf]

Okay guys I am going to open up a pizzeria that gives away free pizza but people who want toppings on it will have to pay for them. Anyone care to loan me a few thousand to get it started? Didn't think so.


Free to play is free to fail. I still haven't seen anyone who is pro-ftp here address the fact that microtransactions will produce 1 of 2 outcomes:

A: microtransactions will not provide any tangible gameplay benefits. In this case they won't sell enough to male the game profitable.

Or (most likely)

B: Microtransactions will create a population of haves and have-nots, with the former utterly dominating the latter until they either pay up or more likely, quit altogether.

These are the only 2 possible outcomes. If you're suggesting FTP you'll need to find a way to reconcile this and good luck with that. And I'm telling you now, any time they aren't making enough money, the power of microtransactions will increase. Servers and devs aren't free and SOE is a business, they are here to make money and they have shareholders to answer to.


Like just about everyone else I am fine with 30 day free ttrial if linked to a credit card. But if that doesn't convince someone to sub then they either didn't like the game or the developers aren't doing a good job of giving us our money's worth. I want PSN to be a game that I won't think twice about paying 15 a month for.

[Raymac]

Here's my bottom line:

I'm all for free to play / microtransactions because they do bring in more players. In Planetside, more players = more fun. I just want to still be able to do my monthly subscription.

Sure, we have to be concerned about things like hackers abusing free accounts, but thats not impossible.

Free to play is free to fail. I still haven't seen anyone who is pro-ftp here address the fact that microtransactions will produce 1 of 2 outcomes:

A: microtransactions will not provide any tangible gameplay benefits. In this case they won't sell enough to male the game profitable.

Or (most likely)

B: Microtransactions will create a population of haves and have-nots, with the former utterly dominating the latter until they either pay up or more likely, quit altogether.

These are the only 2 possible outcomes. If you're suggesting FTP you'll need to find a way to reconcile this and good luck with that. And I'm telling you now, any time they aren't making enough money, the power of microtransactions will increase. Servers and devs aren't free and SOE is a business, they are here to make money and they have shareholders to answer to.



OK, I'll give it a shot.

A. Microtransactions don't need to add to the gameplay, it just needs to add players. You give people more options on how to pay, you are including more people. I don't know what the microtransactions could be, perhaps temporary cert points, perhaps just cosmetic features. They can work out the details, but basically if you give people more options other than ALL OR NOTHING, then more people will play.

B. One of the essential pillars that made Planetside work was that the only advantage veteran players with a high rank had over new players with a low rank was more versatility. The HA gun that the new player gets is EXACTLY the same HA gun a veteran player uses.

Planetside NEVER had a problem with "the haves vs. the have nots" since it's an equal playing field. Therefore, your point B is really moot.


It's a reality of the world that free to play has been shown to be a successful business model. Not only would I not have a problem if Planetside Next had a free to play option, I think it would be a foolish business decision if they didn't. The more players they can get in the door, the better.

[Bags]

If you let people buy more cert points, even if only temporary you'll end up with what we have now in PS. Everyone has everything.

At most micro transactions should be limited to cosmetic things.

[Raymac]

If you let people buy more cert points, even if only temporary you'll end up with what we have now in PS. Everyone has everything.

At most micro transactions should be limited to cosmetic things.


No. I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear. Still keep the cert cap the same at like BR25. I was really expanding on the idea that others have said where free to play people get a cap of BR6 or BR10, but then with microtransactions, they could get a temporary increase in cert points. They could increase the certs as much as they want to spend, but limit it to the hard cap you get at BR25.

I 100% agree (even though I havn't been on in awhile) that everyone being able to get every cert is bad for the game.

[morf]

It's a reality of the world that free to play has been shown to be a successful business model.

I don't want to go through and nitpick everything about your post I didn't like so let's just focus on the quote above since your entire argument pretty much hinges on it. Can you name just 1 SUCCESSFUL free to play game that is funded by microtransactions and allows a non-paying player with similar skill and playtime to compete on the same level as a paying player?

[Warruz]

Please no FTP either go subscriptions or go guildwars style(Xpacs often)

Guildwars style because it will gain the same appeal that Tf2 does in that il go back to it every so often just to play and have long streaks of playing alot of it. However doing that leaves people left out and such a thing would cause a issue in Planetside(we all remember core combat).

however in the end i would prefer a monthly subscription so everyone is on the same level, be it weapons or the world they are allowed to fight for which was the greatness of planetside, if you where BR 6 or BR 20 you could kill each other. Simply the Br 20 had more options to choose from at the same moment.

[Ghryphen]

Farmville hah

[Raymac]

I don't want to go through and nitpick everything about your post I didn't like so let's just focus on the quote above since your entire argument pretty much hinges on it. Can you name just 1 SUCCESSFUL free to play game that is funded by microtransactions and allows a non-paying player with similar skill and playtime to compete on the same level as a paying player?

Can I name a game off the top of my head right now? Nope.

However, I've read plenty of interviews and news articles talking about the success of the free to play model. I don't care enough to start researching and citing sources because I know what I read.

If you want to do some research and come up with some interviews from companies talking about how the free to play model is not sustainable, go knock yourself out. If I'm wrong, it won't be the first time. However, from what I remember reading and hearing from these companies, free to play has been very successful.

EDIT: Gryphon coming to my rescue again. Comparing Farmville to Planetside is clearly apples to oranges, but the principle works.

[TRex]

It's a reality of the world that free to play has been shown to be a successful business model. Not only would I not have a problem if Planetside Next had a free to play option, I think it would be a foolish business decision if they didn't. The more players they can get in the door, the better.

I might go along with this only if it was an option. You could subscribe to ps:n for similar sub to what we have now, or go f2p as long as the net perks you could buy from the theoretical item shops were mandatorily(?) available as standard in the subsciption, and this was obvious and transparent to all that try the game out.
The obvious drawbacks, are hacking (they just had to stop free-trials ) and the fact f2p are a successful business model because they get more people to try the game out and rip the ones off that decide to buy random junk that like it .
This is a fps, and people on the whole play the game for tactics and fragging. They arent decorating a house or filling it with furniture to show to their friends. Unless its just something trivial like buying a cowboy or ninja outfit for you avatar, I see the majority of item shop things being travelling bonus' to get to fight quicker or allowing multiple bind locations . Things that are deemed necessary to allow you to play effectively.

[morf]

Farmville hah

Biplane for instant grow leaves you in the dust. Cash only. Sorry.

NEXT...


(Edit to add)
I am not saying free to play is not sustainable. My argument is that in every financially successful free to play game, the players who pay vastly outmatch the players who don't, assuming similar play time and skill level. I am not asking for research, I am just asking for one example of a game where this is not true. Just name a game, any one will do.

[Raymac]

I am not saying free to play is not sustainable. My argument is that in every financially successful free to play game, the players who pay vastly outmatch the players who don't, assuming similar play time and skill level. I am not asking for research, I am just asking for one example of a game where this is not true. Just name a game, any one will do.

Morf, if you are going to be a jerkass and stick to this childish "just name one" arguement, I'm done. The first thing I said was I couldn't think of one off the top of my head.

Does that mean you can just completely ignore my opinion?

So, morf, you are a smart guy. Use those critical thinking skills you have and follow along with how I thought a free to play model could work with Planetside Next. Just because it hasn't existed before doesn't mean it can't be done.

The original Planetside taught us that back in 2003.

[Hamma]

This is an RPG, but LoTRO Tripled their revenues since going free to play.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/67051

It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for PlanetSide Next to do this imo considering recent successes.

[Sifer2]

If you let people buy more cert points, even if only temporary you'll end up with what we have now in PS. Everyone has everything.

At most micro transactions should be limited to cosmetic things.


Well the way it should be done is Subscribers get the normal amount. Reserves get get less but can buy more for a one time fee. But you cannot ever buy more beyond the normal cap.

Subscribers may get additional perks like priority in que an such.

[morf]

the first thing I said was I couldn't think of one off the top of my head.

So right off the bat you are conceding that, to your knowledge, it has never been done before. My point was good. In fact, assuming that no one here can name a game with the criteria specified, my point is irrefutable. So yes I am sticking to this argument.

Does that mean you can just complely ignore my opinion?

No. It just means that I have completely discredited your opinion, which clearly wasn't very well thought out in the first place because if it was, you'd be able to give me an example of how it worked in the past.

Just because it hasn't existed before doesn't mean it can't be done.

You can say the same thing about time travel, but I don't see it on the horizon any time soon.


Look I'm not attacking you here, I am attacking this microtransaction idea. It would be different if this had never been tried before but the internet is littered with f2p games. The thing they have in common is that as time goes on, the rewards for paying become more and more powerful to entice more and more people to pay. There are people sitting at SOE who went to business school and it's only a matter of time before they start doing this to justify their jobs. It's plain business sense. Microtransactions have no place in psn.

Now look I am all for f2p if itf doesn't involve microtransactions if you want to fill out the ranks. You'll need to link it to a credit card though to stop hackers and imo, they should start at BR1 and be unable to level up without subbing. Furthermore, they get last priority on continent lock and are booted if a subscriber wants in. Also they can only pick the empire with the lowest population when they log in. That would ensure plenty of cannon fodder for the subs for years to come.

[Bags]

Free: Max BR6, no priority for queues.
$15/mo, normal.

[Sifer2]

Free: Max BR6, no priority for queues.
$15/mo, normal.


What about if its like I said above? Like say pay one time 15 dollar fee to unlock 3 more ranks. So Free player reaches BR6 an decided he wants more. Pays 15 an can now level up to BR9. Can pay again to level up to 12. And again maybe up to 15. An then if he wants more he has to sub.

I think that would be reasonable since SOE could get at least 3 months worth of money out of F2P'ers. An they still would lack priority in que. Maybe no command rank either?

[morf]

So in other words, no point in anyone subbing until BR15? And even then, the benefit of leveling beyond 15 really won't be worth paying a sub for (at the very least) half of the population. Guys I don't mean any offense here but I don't think I would hire any of you with these ideas.

[Bags]

:( :(

[Raymac]

Look I'm not attacking you here, I am attacking this microtransaction idea. It would be different if this had never been tried before but the internet is littered with f2p games. The thing they have in common is that as time goes on, the rewards for paying become more and more powerful to entice more and more people to pay. There are people sitting at SOE who went to business school and it's only a matter of time before they start doing this to justify their jobs. It's plain business sense. Microtransactions have no place in psn.

Now look I am all for f2p if itf doesn't involve microtransactions if you want to fill out the ranks. You'll need to link it to a credit card though to stop hackers and imo, they should start at BR1 and be unable to level up without subbing. Furthermore, they get last priority on continent lock and are booted if a subscriber wants in. Also they can only pick the empire with the lowest population when they log in. That would ensure plenty of cannon fodder for the subs for years to come.

I'm pretty much going to just ignore everything you said before where I started the quote, because you were just acting like some total douchebag playing Forumside. I'm too old to be doing that disrespectful bullshit.

Now thats out of the way, I'm glad you finally came around and opened your mind to how a f2p model could work in Planetside. Obviously nobody has it all figured out, but you now finally see that there is room for f2p.

Having alot of players is the very life-blood of Planetside, more so than most other games out there. Right now, the system says either you pay $15 every month, or you don't get to play the game at all. This "all or nothing" line in the sand makes it impossible for players to kinda play it. Giving people options that fall between "all" and "nothing" will mean you gain players that you wouldn't have before.

This isn't reinventing the wheel or "time travel" we are discussing here. All we are doing is looking at the current market, recognizing successful business trends (i.e. free to play), and discussing practical ways in which it could be properly applied to our soon-to-be-favorite game in order to increase the number of people we get to shoot.

[Sifer2]

So in other words, no point in anyone subbing until BR15? And even then, the benefit of leveling beyond 15 really won't be worth paying a sub for (at the very least) half of the population. Guys I don't mean any offense here but I don't think I would hire any of you with these ideas.


Depends on how long it would take to reach BR15 for the average player. Plus this is just an example since we don't know if BR is even in Planetside Next. I was showing how you could have a pay as you go type method in the game that doesn't put the person at a huge disadvantage for not subbing.

Like others are saying we should not completely wright off the F2P concept since fun in Planetside is very much dependent on having a health large playerbase. The key is to figure out how it should be done without getting in the way of the things that make Planetside worth playing in the first place.

[Traak]

Look I'm not attacking you here, I am attacking this microtransaction idea. It would be different if this had never been tried before but the internet is littered with f2p games. The thing they have in common is that as time goes on, the rewards for paying become more and more powerful to entice more and more people to pay. There are people sitting at SOE who went to business school and it's only a matter of time before they start doing this to justify their jobs. It's plain business sense. Microtransactions have no place in psn.

Now look I am all for f2p if itf doesn't involve microtransactions if you want to fill out the ranks. You'll need to link it to a credit card though to stop hackers and imo, they should start at BR1 and be unable to level up without subbing. Furthermore, they get last priority on continent lock and are booted if a subscriber wants in. Also they can only pick the empire with the lowest population when they log in. That would ensure plenty of cannon fodder for the subs for years to come.

Nice. Let the beancounters get their feet in the door, and you end up with a game that is to Planetside what the Mustang II was to the Mustang. "Emasculated" is the word that comes to mind.

[CutterJohn]

Look I'm not attacking you here, I am attacking this microtransaction idea. It would be different if this had never been tried before but the internet is littered with f2p games. The thing they have in common is that as time goes on, the rewards for paying become more and more powerful to entice more and more people to pay. There are people sitting at SOE who went to business school and it's only a matter of time before they start doing this to justify their jobs. It's plain business sense. Microtransactions have no place in psn.

Paying for power is bad. Why should someone get more powerful than me just because they paid?

Now look I am all for f2p if itf doesn't involve microtransactions if you want to fill out the ranks. You'll need to link it to a credit card though to stop hackers and imo, they should start at BR1 and be unable to level up without subbing. Furthermore, they get last priority on continent lock and are booted if a subscriber wants in. Also they can only pick the empire with the lowest population when they log in. That would ensure plenty of cannon fodder for the subs for years to come.

Except when I do it. Bring me fodder. Those newbs that didn't pay anything don't deserve to fight on an equal footing. Its their own fault anyway, than can just sub.



All I can figure is you've got a pavlovian response to rage when you hear the term microtransaction, since you are, by your own admission, pretty much fine with paying money for perks, benefits, and increased combat power.

[Valverde]

Free to play sounds nice. But the bad part of it is really... Who has the most money has the best equipment. Micro Transactions always leave people without. I far rather pay $14.99 or cheaper a month, to get a even chance to compete then have to spend $5.00 here and another whatever amount there. Micro Transactions rob players of there money because they are based around a continuous I want circle. I use to be a sales man and the way I see it is it is a easy way to get a customer to buy 1 product and stack addons on to it. The truth about Micro Transactions is the customer ends up spending five times the amount they normally would. That 14.99 charge is now 32.99 and you are just a month in.

[Firefly]

One of the core fundamentals of Planetside that made it unlike any other MMO (in addition to being an FPS) was that a BR1 could compete with a BR20. Installing MTX and F2P models would strip that entire mechanic from the game.

[Jonny]

Fair points, maybe a monthly fee is best.

Or Free to play without microtransactions ;)

[morf]

Paying for power is bad. Why should someone get more powerful than me just because they paid?



Except when I do it. Bring me fodder. Those newbs that didn't pay anything don't deserve to fight on an equal footing. Its their own fault anyway, than can just sub.



All I can figure is you've got a pavlovian response to rage when you hear the term microtransaction, since you are, by your own admission, pretty much fine with paying money for perks, benefits, and increased combat power.

Look I think my beliefs are pretty consistent here. Your subscription to the game should make you every bit as powerful as anyone else. That's the standard. Microtransactions won't allow for this, eventually you would get to the point where for 2 bucks a day you could have double armor and for another dollar you get +15 percent attack speed and so on and so forth and next thing you know the guy blowing 100 a month rolls over everyone. A subscription model establishes a ceiling and a baseline. And really maybe the f2p should be only a trial. I don't know about it, I was just throwing it out there. But it's interesting how you attack me and don't offer any solution whatsoever.

[Hmr85]

I am going to have to say no to Micro transactions/Free to pay. Keep it as it currently and give me all the extra features in the Sub I am paying. Such as custom outfit decals/armor. This is something that SOE should do anyways to support the community.

As for free to pay...NO, NO, and NO. We saw where trials got us and they just got rid of that crap.

[Valverde]

I will state one thing here. If it is subscription based, there should be the same options as there are on the PC on the PS3. My example DUCO has different rates depending on platform, and more options. If I pay for Station Access I damn well better get access on the PS3 as well. It is unfair to suggest you have to pay one price over another.

[Jonny]

As for free to pay...NO, NO, and NO. We saw where trials got us and they just got rid of that crap.

I heard hackers have been using the free trials, but for people like me that just want to try the game (I never have) I cant, it just never loads the web page after signing in on that account thing. I'm guessing that happens because they took away free trials.

[Valverde]

I heard hackers have been using the free trials, but for people like me that just want to try the game (I never have) I cant, it just never loads the web page after signing in on that account thing. I'm guessing that happens because they took away free trials.

lol no, thats because the station sign in sucks. "Its a busted as my momma's girl parts." - Borderlands

[Firefly]

I heard hackers have been using the free trials, but for people like me that just want to try the game (I never have) I cant, it just never loads the web page after signing in on that account thing. I'm guessing that happens because they took away free trials.
Are you in the United States?

[Jonny]

Are you in the United States?

Na, UK.

[Firefly]

Email Smedley or call their Customer Support. In the meantime I'll look for a link that should let you subscribe. A lot of my outfit mates had the same problem.

[SonjaBlade]

I'm completely for the sub model. Frankly, anyone that thinks paying $15 for a potential month's worth of entertainment is daft.

Go to an early movie, get popcorn, and a drink... see if you don't pay $15 or more... for maybe 2 hours of movie.

Or get PS for $15, play whenever you want for the whole month. Frankly, as long as Sony doesn't drop the customer support ball on this one, I'm happy to pay out for monthly fee.

If I wanted to play games for free, I'd go on Facebook.

[Raymac]

Look I think my beliefs are pretty consistent here. Your subscription to the game should make you every bit as powerful as anyone else. That's the standard. Microtransactions won't allow for this, eventually you would get to the point where for 2 bucks a day you could have double armor and for another dollar you get +15 percent attack speed and so on and so forth and next thing you know the guy blowing 100 a month rolls over everyone. A subscription model establishes a ceiling and a baseline. And really maybe the f2p should be only a trial. I don't know about it, I was just throwing it out there. But it's interesting how you attack me and don't offer any solution whatsoever.

See, this seems to be the fundamental problem. You seem totally stuck on this idea that microtransactions must increase your stats. Well, can't you get your head around the concept that they can design microtransactions for Planetside that don't boost things like armor or attack speed?

As I and others have suggested before, if you limit the BR rank of these accounts, then you could have microtransactions to temporarily increase your certs (as long as they don't go above a BR25 cap).

We can and should have the regular monthly subscription, but this other option allows people to play that don't want to fork out the $15/month. Also, it does so in a way that doesn't change the gameplay. Basically, there would be no difference between somebody on a free account doing microtransactions, and a monthly subscriber thats still at a lower rank.

It would be stupid to start giving stat buffs, but thats not the only way to do microtransactions.

[Valverde]

See, this seems to be the fundamental problem. You seem totally stuck on this idea that microtransactions must increase your stats. Well, can't you get your head around the concept that they can design microtransactions for Planetside that don't boost things like armor or attack speed?

As I and others have suggested before, if you limit the BR rank of these accounts, then you could have microtransactions to temporarily increase your certs (as long as they don't go above a BR25 cap).

We can and should have the regular monthly subscription, but this other option allows people to play that don't want to fork out the $15/month. Also, it does so in a way that doesn't change the gameplay. Basically, there would be no difference between somebody on a free account doing microtransactions, and a monthly subscriber thats still at a lower rank.

It would be stupid to start giving stat buffs, but thats not the only way to do microtransactions.


"As I and others have suggested before, if you limit the BR rank of these accounts, then you could have microtransactions to temporarily increase your certs (as long as they don't go above a BR25 cap)." - Raymac

Again you are using the term "limit" which indicates a disadvantage. A BR 1 might be able to kill a BR 10 but the BR10 for example still has a lot larger advantage over the BR 1. Anything that gives limitation or advantages is why Micro Transactions wont work. Also the way in which you mentioned to doesn't make sense in SOE or any other MMO Markets Standard Operating Platform, If you were going to limit Level/Rank/etc.. then that would be considered a trial version and nothing else. At which this is already in place for a few games.

The only way you could or should offer Micro Transactions is if you are giving "aesthetics" like Everquest II does. But those models only work well with a younger audience. Games such as ToonTown and so on make this a possibility.

Honestly there is no possibility of a Micro Transaction and F2P structure here. The only thing I can see SOE adding is with "aesthetics" or their Gaming Card System.

[Raymac]

"
As I and others have suggested before, if you limit the BR rank of these accounts, then you could have microtransactions to temporarily increase your certs (as long as they don't go above a BR25 cap)." - Raymac :: Again you are using the term "limit" which indicates a disadvantage. A BR 1 might be able to kill a BR 10 but the BR10 for example still has a lot larger advantage over the BR 1. Anything that gives limitation or advantages is why Micro Transactions wont work. Also the way in which you mentioned to doesn't make sense in SOE or any other MMO Markets Standard Operating Platform, If you were going to limit Level/Rank/etc.. then that would be considered a trial version and nothing else. At which this is already in place for a few games.

The only way you could or should offer Micro Transactions is if you are giving "aesthetics" like Everquest II does. But those models only work well with a younger audience. Games such as ToonTown and so on make this a possibility.

Honestly there is no possibility of a Micro Transaction and F2P structure here. The only thing I can see SOE adding is with "aesthetics" or their Gaming Card System.

OK, I put the part in bold that I primarily disagree with. The great thing about Planetside was that it is skill based so a BR1's bullets hurt just as much as a BR25's bullets.

You say there's an "advantage", but having a higher BR only makes you more versatile, NOT more powerful. Sure, you can't drive a tank AND fly a plane, but you can do either / or. This isn't WoW where a level 10 has no chance against a level 80. The equal playing field has always been essential in Planetside.

[Firefly]

I heard hackers have been using the free trials, but for people like me that just want to try the game (I never have) I cant, it just never loads the web page after signing in on that account thing. I'm guessing that happens because they took away free trials.

Try this link first:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35830

If that doesn't work try this:
http://www.direct2drive.com/6/79/product/Buy-PlanetSide%C2%AE:-Aftershock-Download

[Valverde]

OK, I put the part in bold that I primarily disagree with. The great thing about Planetside was that it is skill based so a BR1's bullets hurt just as much as a BR25's bullets.

You say there's an "advantage", but having a higher BR only makes you more versatile, NOT more powerful. Sure, you can't drive a tank AND fly a plane, but you can do either / or. This isn't WoW where a level 10 has no chance against a level 80. The equal playing field has always been essential in Planetside.


First off let me just let you know I wasn't trying to attack you. So if you took it that way sorry.

The reason why I am still calling it an advantage and again that was just an example, is with more certs at a higher BR level you have the possibilty to access special equipment stronger tanks, stronger weapons, stronger aircrafts. Limiting a BR level limits the access to these. Again I know and well understand a BR1 can kill a BR25 but with even implants as an example a BR25 can see me in cloaker where a BR1 Just lost his chance to kill a cloaker.

[Bags]

Cloakers aren't terribly hard to kill without darklight. I have darklight purely for the FPS boost.

[DviddLeff]

Yeah I totally support br and cr limits for people who don't sub and trial accounts. They can still fill a role or two well enough, just not as many as a subscribed player.

[Valverde]

True, they aren't it is just an example. Now Raymac your example is to stop them at the top BR rank. The only real problem is that making anything a Benefit or more Versatile is to make someone have an advantage no matter what that is.

The only real Micro Transaction should be an extra character slot. Since there is no real needs for more then two or three characters if even that.

[Nephilimuk]

no to micro transactions - subscription only or it starts to get really silly really quickly

[Raymac]

First off let me just let you know I wasn't trying to attack you. So if you took it that way sorry.

The reason why I am still calling it an advantage and again that was just an example, is with more certs at a higher BR level you have the possibilty to access special equipment stronger tanks, stronger weapons, stronger aircrafts. Limiting a BR level limits the access to these. Again I know and well understand a BR1 can kill a BR25 but with even implants as an example a BR25 can see me in cloaker where a BR1 Just lost his chance to kill a cloaker.

No worries, dude. You didn't come off as rude or attacking, so I'm sorry if it appeared I was attacking you.

I guess we are splitting hairs a little bit. You say with more certs you get "stronger weapons", but I say you get "different" weapons. I won't go into examples, because we all know the strengthes and weaknesses of MA, HA, AV, etc. etc.

Clearly, if microtransactions are implemented, there will need to be serious balance considerations, but I think it could work and if it does, it will likely add alot to the playerbase which is a good thing.

[Valverde]

No worries, dude. You didn't come off as rude or attacking, so I'm sorry if it appeared I was attacking you.

I guess we are splitting hairs a little bit. You say with more certs you get "stronger weapons", but I say you get "different" weapons. I won't go into examples, because we all know the strengthes and weaknesses of MA, HA, AV, etc. etc.

Clearly, if microtransactions are implemented, there will need to be serious balance considerations, but I think it could work and if it does, it will likely add alot to the playerbase which is a good thing.

Yeah no worries I didn't think you were attacking me either. Just making it clear people like to flame war on forums. lol better to make you intentions clear then not.

Yeah if there was balancing I agree then Micro Transactions would work. Just knowing SOE that wont happen lol they always make something better then the other, my only example is SWG. Jedi(Pre NGE) went from elite TKA/Pistoleer to Bounty Hunter to Commando and so on.

But nonetheless lets hope they make everything even no matter what.

[morf]

See, this seems to be the fundamental problem. You seem totally stuck on this idea that microtransactions must increase your stats. Well, can't you get your head around the concept that they can design microtransactions for Planetside that don't boost things like armor or attack speed?

As I and others have suggested before, if you limit the BR rank of these accounts, then you could have microtransactions to temporarily increase your certs (as long as they don't go above a BR25 cap).

We can and should have the regular monthly subscription, but this other option allows people to play that don't want to fork out the $15/month. Also, it does so in a way that doesn't change the gameplay. Basically, there would be no difference between somebody on a free account doing microtransactions, and a monthly subscriber thats still at a lower rank.

It would be stupid to start giving stat buffs, but thats not the only way to do microtransactions.

I have said it no kess than 10 times here. Microtransactions have no place in planetside. I don't care how benevolent you make it sound. At some point some marketing guy at soe will realize that it's not pulling enough money (because it won't) - and the system will be tweaked to be more profitable (because that's their job). And the more people quit the game because of it, the more powerful microtransactions become until they suck every penny they can out of it. This brings me back to my previous argument which you ONCE AGAIN failed to address:

Please name one (just one) competitive, financially successful game that included microtransactions, but where a non paying player could keep up with a paying player, assuming similar playtime and skill level. It can't be done because it never happened and never will happen. Bottom line, people only pay for things they believe have value. In a microtransaction model, the game goes down the tube the moment the creator decides to up the value of the perks to make more money. (And make no mistake about it, they DO make more money as they jack up the perks.)

[Raymac]

I have said it no kess than 10 times here. Microtransactions have no place in planetside. I don't care how benevolent you make it sound. At some point some marketing guy at soe will realize that it's not pulling enough money (because it won't) - and the system will be tweaked to be more profitable (because that's their job). And the more people quit the game because of it, the more powerful microtransactions become until they suck every penny they can out of it. This brings me back to my previous argument which you ONCE AGAIN failed to address:

Please name one (just one) competitive, financially successful game that included microtransactions, but where a non paying player could keep up with a paying player, assuming similar playtime and skill level. It can't be done because it never happened and never will happen. Bottom line, people only pay for things they believe have value. In a microtransaction model, the game goes down the tube the moment the creator decides to up the value of the perks to make more money. (And make no mistake about it, they DO make more money as they jack up the perks.)

OK Morf. Thats it dude. Clearly, this is turning into more of a politcal debate than an open discussion. You've made it abundantly clear that you are simply philosophically against microtransactions. You are like some democrat or republican that is simply argueing a point of view with no intention to keep an open mind.

Imagine it's 2002, and I say that people might like a sci-fi fps game that is on a massive scale. I'm talking hundreds of people all fighting together with different weapons and vehicles. Your response of "it's never been done so it can't be done" is just a weak dismissal that requires no thought at all. Sure it hadn't been done before, but then Planetside comes out and breaks new ground.

The same can be true for microtransactions in PS:N. I've seen a number of suggestions in which microtransactions could work while avoiding the pitfalls you keep repeating.

I'm not interested in a political style debate with some partisan that is clearly anti-microtransactions no matter what. I could think of the most brilliant way to work in microtransactions and you would just come back with "name 1 game. name 1 game". Well, Planetside broke new ground, so using that arguement is flawed. Planetside is still such a unique game it's hard to compare it to anything, so stop repeating that shit and use some critical thinking.

[Valverde]

There is my Golden example of a meaningless war. morf he is simply stating his opinion you may not like his opinion and you do NOT have to agree with it, but you have to accept there are different views. I myself have different views then Raymac but it doesn't mean I am going to go out on a limb to try and make him change his mind. Besides if you simply have a friendly debt you might find something you agree on.

[morf]

OK Morf. Thats it dude. Clearly, this is turning into more of a politcal debate than an open discussion. You've made it abundantly clear that you are simply philosophically against microtransactions. You are like some democrat or republican that is simply argueing a point of view with no intention to keep an open mind.

Imagine it's 2002, and I say that people might like a sci-fi fps game that is on a massive scale. I'm talking hundreds of people all fighting together with different weapons and vehicles. Your response of "it's never been done so it can't be done" is just a weak dismissal that requires no thought at all. Sure it hadn't been done before, but then Planetside comes out and breaks new ground.

The same can be true for microtransactions in PS:N. I've seen a number of suggestions in which microtransactions could work while avoiding the pitfalls you keep repeating.

I'm not interested in a political style debate with some partisan that is clearly anti-microtransactions no matter what. I could think of the most brilliant way to work in microtransactions and you would just come back with "name 1 game. name 1 game". Well, Planetside broke new ground, so using that arguement is flawed. Planetside is still such a unique game it's hard to compare it to anything, so stop repeating that shit and use some critical thinking.

I am the only one in this debate using critical thinking. I understand your argument that planetside broke ground 8 years ago and accomplished something that had not been done before. Bravo. It also was something that very few had tried before. As I said about 4 responses ago, THE INTERNET IS LITTERED WITH GAMES THAT HAVE TRIED WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING. This is not unexplored territory. The fate is always the same: the company decides they need more money, ramps up the power of microtransactions, profits go through the roof, and the people who don't use microstransactions get marginalized.

You have yet to explain how you will reconcile the fact that SOE is a for-profit entity with people who went to business school who need to justify their jobs by making an impact. This is how the real world works. If they determine 2 or 3 years into PSN that they can triple their profits by buffing the microtransactions - (just as you and others have pointed out other games have done) - do you really think they can stand in front of shareholders and say "Well, uh, we could have done that, but we didn't want to piss off some guys on the PSU forums." Not going to happen.

So now that you're conceding that it's never been done before, despite probably at least a hundred other games that have tried. Now that we both agree that your idea has the potential for epic catastrophe, with a miniscule chance for success, the benefits of such success being certainly arbitrary and probably achievable by other means. Tell me what is going to be different this time? What is your grand plan to reconcile the problems that caused the hundred plus who have tried this same idea before to fail?

[Raymac]

Tell me what is going to be different this time? What is your grand plan to reconcile the problems that caused the hundred plus who have tried this same idea before to fail?

You are talking shit. Now you are just spouting off absolute rubbish.

Since I'm such an idiot though, why don't you tell me about a game or 2 like Planetside that has tried microtransactions and failed?

I mean you have this paranoia, thats the only word for it, paranoia that if the evil businessmen get their greedy hooks into using microtransactions that they will destroy the game. Some how, microtransactions will inevitably bring about the removal of one of the essential pillars of the game which is all players have access to the same stuff. Everybody's guns shoot exactly the same no matter your rank.

By using your same pathetic extreme-slippery-slope theory, we shouldn't allow these evil businessmen a chance to charge subscriptions either. Because if it starts at $12, well they have shareholders to answer to (thanks for the lesson in capitalism by the way. I've been living under a rock my whole life), so they will have to start charging more like $15, then $20, then $50, then even more. They'll bleed us dry because it's their nature. They've already raised them once before, right? What would be different this time?

See what a stupid arguement that is? You take my words, drag them through the mud and then complain about them being dirty.

I think they can do microtransactions while still keeping Planetside a skill based game as it always has been. You think the way I suggested was wrong because someday they MUST start giving players who pay more buffs which will kill the balance and the game.

It's really a moot arguement because neither of us have any say, so I'll end this with a few quotes from John Smedley about microtransactions:

"So, we did some surveys of our players at FanFare 2008 – we got criticized for this – but we wanted to talk to our hardest-core fans and hardest critics. We got feedback that was very strongly 'Yeah, as long as you don’t sell power, I’d give it a try.' We thought that the time was right."

“FreeRealms has a StationCash store built right into it. The items include potions, outfits, pets. It’s designed with microtransactions from the ground up. I wouldn’t call it power. We’re selling convenience. There will be some items there that you can buy. It’s primarily a microtransaction game, but it’s selling health potions and things like that.”

About 'The Agency'...."It’s skill-based, so we can’t sell anything that confers player advantage. What that specifically means, I don’t know yet. We’re still experimenting.”

"I think we’re going to continue to expand virtual goods as part of our business, but it won’t be the core of our business. You’ll see it in new titles to different extents where appropriate."

[Aractain]

I would like some examples of western run free to play games that sell direct power for cash.

Im well aware that "bad things might happen" (like BFRs or Flails) but I don't remember any real bad free to play stuff run by companies that know how to manage their customers (which SOE might have learned after the NGE).

[Bags]

RIOT games does this. They generally release new, over powered champions which you can buy with cash or earn with in game money.

It's generally not too bad but it's still buying power.

[Firefly]

All you dudes arguing over the same shit OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER are really fucking annoying right now. We GET it. You have an opinion, the other dude is wrong and they won't see your point. What's worse is you KNOW this and you acknowledge it, but it's like a sick, sadistic infinite time loop and you can't get out. Just agree to disagree and go outside, play with some marbles or do some Hopscotch. Jesus. You sound like my fucking parents, holy shit. I'm having fierce flashbacks to the two years before they manned up and got divorced.

[Valverde]

All you dudes arguing over the same shit OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER are really fucking annoying right now. We GET it. You have an opinion, the other dude is wrong and they won't see your point. What's worse is you KNOW this and you acknowledge it, but it's like a sick, sadistic infinite time loop and you can't get out. Just agree to disagree and go outside, play with some marbles or do some Hopscotch. Jesus. You sound like my fucking parents, holy shit. I'm having fierce flashbacks to the two years before they manned up and got divorced.

I hate to say this, but thats the point of this Original Post, is to push and support your opinions, I agree there is one single argument that seems infinite. But Who honestly cares. I think we just need to make sure we are staying on point rather then off calling names or giving titles.

[Jonny]

Having an opinion, a point of view, is just that. ONE point of view. Its like two guys, one with red tinted glasses on and one with green tinted glasses on, arguing about the colour of the world. Both have their own viewpoint, but it doesn't make the other's viewpoint invalid.

What you can do, is rationalise your opinions and therefore why you make them, but state your concerns about another persons ideas. Arguing on the internet has been, and will always be a waste of everyones time.

You both have a point and lets try to look at the possibilities. With microtransacions - yes, there is the danger of it not just being used for asthetic things, but to 'pay for power' through upgrades or whatever. This is obviously bad, and yes businesses want to make money - but games that have done this before have suffered for it. I'm sure APB had something similar and failed. It just doesn't make sense for a game, people will hate it then nobody will play the game. Developers wouldn't want that now would they?

Everyone shake your feathers off and lets talk constructively

[Firefly]

There's a big fucking difference in pushing and supporting your post, and then trying to beat a baby seal over the head with a club once it's dead.

[Jonny]

There's a big fucking difference in pushing and supporting your post, and then trying to beat a baby seal over the head with a club once it's dead.

Yes..yes i suppose there is..:huh:

[Aractain]

Yeah, tell that to all the progress games have made - which mostly come from forum arguments.

Devs do read this kind of stuff sometimes and they often (if they arn't, say, Derek Smart) change the game for the side with the strongest position.

So keep on raging!

[morf]

Look man you have your opinion and I have mine. The only difference is that mine is well thought out and backed up by the fact that what you are proposing has failed time and time again. Whereas your opinion is based on your personal feelings and emotions and cute stuff like that. So since you utterly failed to answer my very valid questions about your idea, I'll just quote them. This canned argument is apparently enough to refute anything you have to offer.


So now that you're conceding that it's never been done before, despite probably at least a hundred other games that have tried. Now that we both agree that your idea has the potential for epic catastrophe, with a miniscule chance for success, the benefits of such success being certainly arbitrary and probably achievable by other means. Tell me what is going to be different this time? What is your grand plan to reconcile the problems that caused the hundred plus who have tried this same idea before to fail?

So this time try addressing the specific concerns instead of just calling me a paranoid forumsider and all around bad guy. I realize your argument isn't as strong as mine but there's still no need for that.

[Firefly]

Sigh. Again - there's a big difference in arguing and pushing and supporting your point of view, and then devolving into what basically amounts to American politics amongst the populace. I can simulate that for you.

Side A: WE ARE RIGHT. YOU ARE WRONG.
Side B: LOL, U MAD? YOU ARE WRONG. WE ARE RIGHT.
Side A: NO U! YOU LIBERAL COMMIE PINKO ******-LOVING SCUM!
Side B: You're a narrow-minded bigot. YOU ARE WRONG. WE ARE RIGHT.
Side A: WE ARE RIGHT. YOU ARE WRONG.
Side B: YOU ARE WRONG. WE ARE RIGHT.
Side A: WE ARE RIGHT. YOU ARE WRONG.
Side B: YOU ARE WRONG. WE ARE RIGHT.
Side A: WE ARE RIGHT. YOU ARE WRONG.
Side B: YOU ARE WRONG. WE ARE RIGHT.
Side A: WE ARE RIGHT. YOU ARE WRONG.
Side B: YOU ARE WRONG. WE ARE RIGHT.
Side A: WE ARE RIGHT. YOU ARE WRONG.
Side B: YOU ARE WRONG. WE ARE RIGHT.
Side A: WE ARE RIGHT. YOU ARE WRONG.
Side B: YOU ARE WRONG. WE ARE RIGHT.
Side A: LIBERAL!
Side B: REPUBLICAN!
Side A: LIBERAL!
Side B: REPUBLICAN!
Side A: LIBERAL!
Side B: REPUBLICAN!
Side A: LIBERAL!
Side B: REPUBLICAN!

See? It's fucking pointless after a certain point. Yes, yes, we get it. You have a point of view. We heard it over and over. We heard the other guy, over and over. Now the whole thing is devolving into name-calling, insulting, and general beating of heads against a brick wall.

That shit is all fine and dandy but at this point it's fucking pointless. And were I a developer again, I'd quickly stop reading past the second iteration of Side A's point and the second iteration of Side B's point.

[Raymac]

Morf. You win at forumside. I can't name a skill based shooter that implented microtransactions in a successful way, so therefore it must be impossible to do even with the intelligent suggestions the OP and others have said.

[Rbstr]

I guess the real question here is why do people want mircotransactions?

Is it because you think you'll still have fun while not paying any/as much money for the game?
I feel this argument is flawed because the only reason to move to microtransactions would be to increase revenue, that's why the concept even exists. That means, on average, every subscriber actually needs to pay more than before or you need more may more players. I'm not so sure either route is as sustainable as a subscription:
1.With the lots of cheap players route you have to have the incentive to purchase be rather high to have the take-rates needed on transactions. This means cheap stuff, but stuff that . But this also favours the game of the month kind of player that goes COD4 -> BC2 ->PSN-> COD23, which may lead to low player longevity, which means any new transactions have to be worth more, in both money and gameplay value, to make up for player loss.
2. With fewer players you have to have expensive junk that has to be nearly mandatory to generate revenue. Because people are invested in the game, you don't have quite the longevity problems, but you also create a far more "elite" set of dudes that have purchased power.

It's a problem of economics, if microtransactions are your revenue, you have to have incentive for people buy to them. Simple aesthetic things will not suffice in a shooter.

My last thought is that microtransactions are annoying. Sure, it may cost me less, but I'm prepared with $15 a month (which...if you have trouble affording, you probably need to have a look at the rest of your life) . With microtransactions I've gotta buy some damn $2 stuff all the time, making sure I select the proper junk that I'm going to use, instead of a nice easy $15 a month with no hassle otherwise.

Now, I hate to bring this up again, but I've been away for a bit.
wow... if you honestly think that they only run one server, then you are the biggest idiot I've ever heard talk about CCP.

You know what I mean and you're being pedantic: Yeah, there's a number of physical computer boxes but all characters are in the same boat, every subscriber, Everything is hosted in the same place in the UK, all the items are in the same database, the only sharding is the China version (which operates on some fairly different mechanics). The whole rest of the world interacts in the same universe, any character could meet any other without ever caring that a jump between X and Y system switches nodes.
I get there are practical concerns (especially latency, which matters less in a non-twitch game) that keep this from being too practical. My point is that smaller, less populated servers are easier, not harder than one big monster, which means I expect more of the secondary benefits out of a subscription.

[Jonny]

Yeah Monthly sub is probably best with no paying for powers. Do you think they would ever just sell the game with a box price and nothing on top?

[morf]

Imo the problem with box only sales is they really have no motivation to keep you happy once you've bought the box.

[Raymac]

I guess the real question here is why do people want mircotransactions?



I want to pay by subscription. No hassel, no fuss. However, there are people that don't want to pay a subscription for a shooter, so if they can find a way to bring in those players and not break the game, then that would be great. More players = more fun.

Appearantly, despite the ideas put forth in this thread, some people believe it will inevitably lead to 'selling power', which everyone agrees would blow dirty goats.

[Firefly]

Imo the problem with box only sales is they really have no motivation to keep you happy once you've bought the box.
If by box sales you mean actual boxes that you buy in the store, pretty much the bulk of the market is switching to D2D type formats. Box sales in retail stores is going the way of the dodo, at least among many companies that I know of. I don't know what SOE specifically will do.

[Jonny]

Imo the problem with box only sales is they really have no motivation to keep you happy once you've bought the box.

Because they're nice people. I really don't know anything about the costs and business blah de blah of video games. I just respect developers that put love and passion into what they do, without profit being their goal.

That said if they need 5 - 10 quid a month from each person for costs and a little profit, I don't have a problem with that.

Unfortunately many companies start off with good intentions like this and then they start getting greedy. TF2 for instance, I would rather the whole buying virtual items with real money (ie them printing cash) had never happened.

Because really, money tends to corrupt the world. Economies are always looking for growth, and deem a shrink in economy as a terrible thing. Why? Why do we always have to expand? I don't think it has anything to do with happiness. That has to come from being a good person, enjoying what you do and living in the moment.

[Valverde]

The thing is with subscriptions you are getting consistent content. But, I will say this when you play a game like Planetside you don't exactly get content that is made weekly nor monthly. In the end its the same game, a Shooter, your goals are realistically the same, and there is never really any end to the game because of that. Like I said before I believe in Subscription Models to since most if not all Companies that make F2P and MTX seem to make content that can be bought a power addon and a disadvantage to other players without the extra cash. BUT

A F2P idea isn't so bad when a game like Planetside doesn't get an abundance up content updates. The only problem is you can not have a MMO and have F2P without MTX.

[morf]

If by box sales you mean actual boxes that you buy in the store, pretty much the bulk of the market is switching to D2D type formats. Box sales in retail stores is going the way of the dodo, at least among many companies that I know of. I don't know what SOE specifically will do.
For the purposes of this discussion, "box" means initial upfront cost of the game, regardless of whether or not there is a physical box.

[Valverde]

If by box sales you mean actual boxes that you buy in the store, pretty much the bulk of the market is switching to D2D type formats. Box sales in retail stores is going the way of the dodo, at least among many companies that I know of. I don't know what SOE specifically will do.

Actually I read in article in Wired that said Sony is among many of the companies that will indulge in physical-less media. There is even statements from Sony suggesting for the PS3 they are considering going through their online store completely and leaving the option for ordering from the manufacture/producer/developer.

I use to work at Best Buy and we were told they are making our gaming isle smaller since Sony Specifically asked for less head space because of online media. We were told this and given the plano-gram from a Sony Employee.

[Warruz]

Because they're nice people. I really don't know anything about the costs and business blah de blah of video games. I just respect developers that put love and passion into what they do, without profit being their goal.

That said if they need 5 - 10 quid a month from each person for costs and a little profit, I don't have a problem with that.

Unfortunately many companies start off with good intentions like this and then they start getting greedy. TF2 for instance, I would rather the whole buying virtual items with real money (ie them printing cash) had never happened.

Because really, money tends to corrupt the world. Economies are always looking for growth, and deem a shrink in economy as a terrible thing. Why? Why do we always have to expand? I don't think it has anything to do with happiness. That has to come from being a good person, enjoying what you do and living in the moment.
Growth is favored because in general it raises the quality of life

[Hamma]

So overall micro transactions is still a fairly new system that devs are trying to figure out. Personally I don't want to see them in PlanetSide for that very reason. It's an entirely new area that they have to worry about balancing while still balancing the base game. I would much rather we get a subscription rate than micro.

And this brings up subscriptions, I am stealing Gryphons train of thought on this but what if PlanetSide went to like 7 bucks a month, I would bet they'd get enough subscribers to make up for the difference.

[Aractain]

If I was in charge, needing DOUBLE the subs to get my profit feels difficult in a VERY competative space. If your going to go down that route haing a paid time system would probably work out better (as long as you tell people about how it works LOL @ APB).


Historically infantry is the biggest draw of players. Battlefields Krikland(? It was a big city) map was the most popular by far which IMO led to the special forces expack (which was awesome).

If my infantry combat didn't compete with (fun wise not mimic) COD and BC2 I would be worried.
Would the 'wargame' players like me really make up for that shortfall?

Planetsides KEY resoruce is players. This should be obvious. Its the number 1 thing I'm worried about, other than if this game is good, after 6 months.

Of coruse - they can always go free to play later like all these failure MMOs.....

[CutterJohn]

So overall micro transactions is still a fairly new system that devs are trying to figure out. Personally I don't want to see them in PlanetSide for that very reason. It's an entirely new area that they have to worry about balancing while still balancing the base game. I would much rather we get a subscription rate than micro.

And this brings up subscriptions, I am stealing Gryphons train of thought on this but what if PlanetSide went to like 7 bucks a month, I would bet they'd get enough subscribers to make up for the difference.


I think that people, especially fps gamers, are really opposed to the idea of paying subscriptions. Even more so than a lot of you guys are to the idea of microtransactions or other alternative forms of payment.

Subs are a really, really huge turnoff for a lot of people. Why, after all, pay for something when you can get equivalents for free? You of course may disagree that it is equivalent, but for a lot of people its not different enough to warrant the sub. Especially if they have not even considered playing because of the sub(which is why a lot of people I know never bothered with PS in the first place).


At any rate, its all probably irrelevant. The suits at SOE will do what they think is best.

[Baneblade]

Any F2P PS game must do this as a base line:

BR ranks are free.

CR ranks cost money to unlock... and you still have to grind them up.

Being able to use CR abilities (including being able to see [Command]) requires a subscription.

Having the armor pieces show up also requires a sub.

[Sifer2]

Any F2P PS game must do this as a base line:

BR ranks are free.

CR ranks cost money to unlock... and you still have to grind them up.

Being able to use CR abilities (including being able to see [Command]) requires a subscription.

Having the armor pieces show up also requires a sub.


That's not a bad idea as an additional benefit of Sub. But if all BR's are free very few will sub. Cause how many are really interested in commanding? Most probably did it for the chat an armor but wouldn't pay monthly for it.

An as I said we don't know how it will work yet if there will be the same type of leveling/cert system.

[Valverde]

Any F2P PS game must do this as a base line:

BR ranks are free.

CR ranks cost money to unlock... and you still have to grind them up.

Being able to use CR abilities (including being able to see [Command]) requires a subscription.

Having the armor pieces show up also requires a sub.

The BR Ranks being free, ok maybe. But anything that gives one player a advantage over another, rather it be a skill or a weapon/armor is unfair. It is funny that if you read the majority of these posts we are going in a giant circle with this.

Maybe if you did something like this it would be more fair:


BR ranks = Free

CR ranks* = Purchase For Access to CR Ranks non-sub
*These ranks after purchasing access are now all gained through grinding.

Armor/Weapons = Free

Modifications(Aesthetics) = Purchase per Aesthetics

Now I know no one really likes in-game currency but you could do like Xbox Live and make the way of buying these things through credits; $5.00 for 1000 points, etc...

I did that would Battlefield Heroes and I'll be honest I didn't mind it.

Now you could even add a other option:

Either Pay per Transaction like above

or

Pay a low subscription price per month like 7.99.

The only difference is the sub account has full access to everything without limitation to any feature. Because some people are very happy with one Armor Set, One Weapons Set or Vehicle Set.

[morf]

You guys aren't being reasonable here. To use my analogy from earlier, you're opening a pizza shop and offering free pizza to everyone, but if they happen to want anchovies, they have to pay. In this case, CR is anchovies. It's an acquired taste and the vast majority aren't all that interested in it. Your proposal is to give away for free the stuff that would make 90 percent of the people pay.

[Jonny]

And this brings up subscriptions, I am stealing Gryphons train of thought on this but what if PlanetSide went to like 7 bucks a month, I would bet they'd get enough subscribers to make up for the difference.

This is what I thought would be the best solution. A cheaper subscription so less people are worried about the ongoing cost/if they don't have enough time to play. It would bring in loads more players and there would be much less hassle/you would probably spend less than with microtransactions. (in the first year at least)

[Valverde]

You guys aren't being reasonable here. To use my analogy from earlier, you're opening a pizza shop and offering free pizza to everyone, but if they happen to want anchovies, they have to pay. In this case, CR is anchovies. It's an acquired taste and the vast majority aren't all that interested in it. Your proposal is to give away for free the stuff that would make 90 percent of the people pay.

Not sure where your coming from and also who's idea you really feel is unreasonable. In my idea you pay either way, but it gives the people who most likely will only play for a short period of time the benefit of the doubt. There is no such thing as free besides day to day play unless you sub on a 7.99 level in my scenario.

[Valverde]

This is what I thought would be the best solution. A cheaper subscription so less people are worried about the ongoing cost/if they don't have enough time to play. It would bring in loads more players and there would be much less hassle/you would probably spend less than with microtransactions. (in the first year at least)

I think in the end that is a better solution then any other. There is no reason for 14.99 even a rate of 10.00 is sufficient, thats is 1000.00 per 100 people.

[Firefly]

It's an acquired taste and the vast majority aren't all that interested in it.
I disagree. A lot of people are interested in it, which is why there's a fuckton of people that have it. Unless you plan to spend your entire Planetside or Planetside:Next career following, whether it be as an outfit follower or a random squaddie merc follower, you need to have at least CR1.

[Baneblade]

You guys aren't being reasonable here. To use my analogy from earlier, you're opening a pizza shop and offering free pizza to everyone, but if they happen to want anchovies, they have to pay. In this case, CR is anchovies. It's an acquired taste and the vast majority aren't all that interested in it. Your proposal is to give away for free the stuff that would make 90 percent of the people pay.

Offering free pizza maybe, but you can be damned sure people are going to pay out the nose for the calzones.

[Valverde]

Offering free pizza maybe, but you can be damned sure people are going to pay out the nose for the calzones.

Hungry Howeies and Papa Johns does free pizza fridays all the time in Winter Park, FL and even here in Tampa FL, so I don't see what the problem is. Heck last week they offered a free two any topping pizza under 3 toppings. But they are doing fantastic. Just saying.

[morf]

Ok fire I know a lot of people got cr especially once they were max BR. But let's put it into context: if everyone can get br25 for free and you only have to pay for cr, how many ppl will actually want to pay? And yes V, after reading your suggestion again I understand it now about smaller sub for all, buy cr for the rest. I was talking mostly about the other guys suggestion.

[morf]

Hungry Howeies and Papa Johns does free pizza fridays all the time in Winter Park, FL and even here in Tampa FL, so I don't see what the problem is. Heck last week they offered a free two any topping pizza under 3 toppings. But they are doing fantastic. Just saying.

Ok good for them but are you really trying to argue that you can somehow make money giving out free ppizza 24/7? Oh and I live in tampa and never heard of this. Where can I get it? I'm not willing to pay for that shit but if it's free why not lol.

[Baneblade]

Ok fire I know a lot of people got cr especially once they were max BR. But let's put it into context: if everyone can get br25 for free and you only have to pay for cr, how many ppl will actually want to pay? And yes V, after reading your suggestion again I understand it now about smaller sub for all, buy cr for the rest. I was talking mostly about the other guys suggestion.

As long as there are a shitload less CR5pammers than there are now, I don't care how many actually pay. I said that must be the baseline, not the entire f2p model.

CR MUST be premium content in any PS f2p model. Period.

[Valverde]

Ok good for them but are you really trying to argue that you can somehow make money giving out free ppizza 24/7? Oh and I live in tampa and never heard of this. Where can I get it? I'm not willing to pay for that shit but if it's free why not lol.

lol, I use to go all the time when I worked at Always Green, its the one off bears Ave near dale mabery.

[morf]

Haha I'm on bruce b downs a few miles north of 75. Probably not worth the drive but if I'm in the neighborhood maybe. Thanks for the tip.

And I agree that there are too many CR5 spammers. Personally I would like it if you had to work to keep your cr5 status. Maybe something like you have to have CR5 rank and be in the top 5 percent for your empire as far as command exp for the preceding week to talk in global or something of that nature. I'm thinking kind of how the honor system worked in WoW when it was first patched in.

[Bags]

Papa Johns does free pizza fridays all the time in Winter Park, FL and even here in Tampa FLg.

Free shit is still shit. (Yes, all national pizza chains are terrible compared to their local counterparts)

I'd rather sony charge for a good game than give away a shitty game for free.

[Valverde]

Free shit is still shit. (Yes, all national pizza chains are terrible compared to their local counterparts)

I'd rather sony charge for a good game than give away a shitty game for free.

Never said I disagreed. All my arguments state Subscription, but I was giving a "IF" statement to acknowledge the original post. Other words my view if it were f2p and mtx.

[Pillow]

Free 2 play = Free to hack, Free to grief, Free to spy, Free to lame
Dont let history repeat itself plz

[Baneblade]

Free 2 play = Free to hack, Free to grief, Free to spy, Free to lame
Dont let history repeat itself plz

Yeah, cause that never happens in sub games.

[Pillow]

Compare PS now and PS 3 months ago when it was free to play (trial accounts) .
They cant spawncamp and zerobase empires anymore.
The diffrence is huge now when the hackers have to pay for the game so they are forced to use harder to detect hacks instead to avoid getting banned.

[Bags]

Never said I disagreed. All my arguments state Subscription, but I was giving a "IF" statement to acknowledge the original post. Other words my view if it were f2p and mtx.

The parathensis wasn't directed at you per se. I figured I'd get someone arguing with me about in the future. :)

[Rbstr]

You guys are crazy if you think they're going to make money even remotely the same to a flat subscription if CR and aesthetics are the only things to pay for.

[Warruz]

There is always Global Agenda style where you buy boosts. Its FTP up to lvl 15, then ya have to pay(also cant do the whole world fight or anything of sandstorm) for the game. You can also pay for boosts where you get increase XP / Money (in planetside it could be a increase in how quick ya lvl BR).

While i still support the classic Pay to play it would be a interesting approach.

[Hamma]

The earlier argument that people don't want to pay subscription fee's is kind of mute these days. I was worried about this back in 2003 when PS was coming out but nowadays it's almost the norm to have to pay for shit whether it be via sub or microtransaction :\

[kaffis]

Lets pretend PSN is free to play, and that there is no premium subscription. Meaning the game supports itself with a store you can buy stuff from. This is my assumption for how its going to go, as the subscription thing didn't really work out last time. :)


-Access to the other empire specific weapons or vehicles. This could be a package deal or per item.
-Glamor items, like the sword, unlocking uniform colors or special uniforms/helmets/goggles!
-Outfit insignia/flags
-Named outfit bases
-Rankings on ingame leaderboards.
These are all good options for microtransactions for me.

I would even go so far as to say that some of them could be "recurring," as it were. Want to slap your outfit's name on a base? I'd do it as a bidding system, even, and have it give you the name for, say, 3 months.

I would totally pay $2 to have access to a prowler for a night on my NC character. I could totally see my outfit grabbing multiple of such microtransactions to roll a whole column of prowlers for a night a month or whatever. We love getting a chance to hack prowlers and go on a tear. Being able to do it on demand, as it were, rather than just when the opportunity presents itself would be hella fun.

Sony can consult FLS for advice on insignias. Pirates of the Burning Sea has a fantastic player submitted art system, and I would totally pay a few bucks to custom design my outfit's logo from scratch. Not sure where the optimal price point would be, though. Is $5 giving away the farm for a hundred man outfit? Is higher than $5 prohibitive for a smaller one?

I'd love to have a few options for helmet variations, or insignias on the side, etc.

I'd still rather see a box purchase, though. It does help discourage disposable character douchebaggery like cross-teaming and such. Not eliminate, for sure, but it's far less prevalent than when there's free account creation available.

[Baneblade]

You guys are crazy if you think they're going to make money even remotely the same to a flat subscription if CR and aesthetics are the only things to pay for.

I never made that assertation, but CR must be premium content. Maybe even for regular sub models.

7.99 for regular PS
12.99 for premium PS (outfit creation, command ranks and abilities).

[Warruz]

These are all good options for microtransactions for me.

I would even go so far as to say that some of them could be "recurring," as it were. Want to slap your outfit's name on a base? I'd do it as a bidding system, even, and have it give you the name for, say, 3 months.

I would totally pay $2 to have access to a prowler for a night on my NC character. I could totally see my outfit grabbing multiple of such microtransactions to roll a whole column of prowlers for a night a month or whatever. We love getting a chance to hack prowlers and go on a tear. Being able to do it on demand, as it were, rather than just when the opportunity presents itself would be hella fun.
I personally would not play the game if this is the case, it gives the feeling your didnt purchase the whole game or all its features.

[Jonny]

I personally would not play the game if this is the case, it gives the feeling your didnt purchase the whole game or all its features.

Agree. Paying for advertising or recurring stuff is crazy. It would get like apb and we don't want to replicate society where people with more money can have all the power.

I also strongly disagree with paying for something in a game with limited uses. If you pay, you get something for ever, be it a new shoulder pad or who cares what. Stuff like gift wrap in tf2, noise makers (and generally the way they charge more for a virtual hat than a real one would be worth) i find insulting to the player base. Its like saying, here - we're going to print money and you can like it because you don't want to be left behind in the game you bought.

so many issues :/