How much subscription are you willing to pay?

[duck]

I haven't seen any thread on this, so I am curious as to what we are willing to dish out for PS Next.

Assuming the retail game will go for $40 or 50, how much should we pay per month?
I am not a fan of free 2 play games, because the quality of the game sucks and paying for perks will just give the rich a cheap advantage over other players.

I believe the current subscription is $14.99, which is more than what I paid when it first was out. I don't think that subscription is justifiable. WoW can pull it off because players get amazing support, and constant updates with new content.

I think we can agree that SOE customer support isn't the greatest, and the devs for the original Planetside seemed to have abandoned the community after they released the game. $14.99/month is a lot for a company with this kind of background. SOE needs to offer in-game support, as well constant updates to fix bugs and prevent cheaters.

I think $9.99/month is an appropriate amount. Pricing it any higher I'm sure will deter a lot of FPS gamers, especially the ones who are new to MMOs. My opinion of course is subject to change as we gain more insight about this game and what it has to offer.

[Sirisian]

Does it matter? People will pay whatever price SOE sets. :P I'd expect 14.99 a month. We can be lucky if an unlimited subscription is offered.

I'm willing to pay 14.99 a month forever. However I would be willing to pay 49.99 for the first month. It's amazing how much I'd pay to see the new Planetside. If It was good after that they might get 49.99 out of me for a few more months.

[Furret]

sexual favors and the like.

[Grimster]

10-12€ seems reasonable. :)

I don't remember what is it today but I believe its 10€ or something?

[Wrath]

I payed £15 for eve online for many years so if they where going to support the game like eve is support with many free content upgrades then yeah i'd pay that much. if not then £9 would be a reasonable amount it all comes down to what support sony are going to give the game.

[Baneblade]

The question is silly. Because the answer can only be: Absolute minimum required.

[CutterJohn]

I expect 15$ a month, which would be quite fine.

I would prefer that it is a free to play game though, for the long term health of the populations.

[Jonny]

Id probably be most happy with £5 a month, I don't see why it should be as high as paying for a media package that gives you internet etc.

Same argument about what if I don't have much time to play per week/month, being a busy bee.

[Infektion]

lol... Wasn't it like 9.99 a month? Oh yea, that was also a time when I was paying 1.75$ a gallon and I had a minimum wage job. So if I'm not whining, I don't think anyone should.

[Lorgarn]

Even though I'm currently not to wealthy, I consider any reasonable MMO subscription a pretty cheap hobby. At least for the amount of hours of entertainment I get.

So anything between 10-18$ a month is totally fine with me.

I can just skip going out with my friends one night and I'll save a few months worth of subscription. Just like that.

[Jonny]

Even though I'm currently not to wealthy, I consider any reasonable MMO subscription a pretty cheap hobby. At least for the amount of hours of entertainment I get.

So anything between 10-18$ a month is totally fine with me.

I can just skip going out with my friends one night and I'll save a few months worth of subscription. Just like that.

And that kinda sums up the problem with an expensive fee. You feel more compelled to play to get your moneys-worth, and become more addicted to a game, which is obviously a bad thing.

I try and keep a balance and I don't want to feel like because i'm paying for a game I enjoy, I have to play it loads when I might not have the time.

I also have made the argument before of where does the money go for games like WOW, I think a game subscription should be £5-8 no higher.

Sometimes I think they should spell out the costs of running the game to the customer, so where their money goes, if they are putting a monthly fee.

EDIT: It also depends on the quality of the product, I'd pay more if it was really fantastic :).

[Lorgarn]

Personally I don't have that problem, I play because I want to. Not because I have bought a month of subscription or two. I also don't feel bad for not playing for 2 weeks, not because of any money anyways.

I guess I'm lucky that way.

Also, there has been quite some time since I got addicted to a MMO. A few years at least.

[Hamma]

I would pay the same as it costs now. I do think hitting the 9.99 price point for an MMOFPS would be a better sweet spot though.

[Bhopx]

I think $14.99 is pretty standard, with possible discounts for buying in advance, like $12.99 if you buy 3 months, $10.99 for 6 months.

[Aractain]

I still think having a required sub is going to be bad for a game competing in a space that has mostly 'free' games.

There needs to be an option for those who play casually or they wont play at all. Its not even just about the money remember. Low pops = no fun, no fun = canceled accounts and LOWER pops. Planetside had this problem. The perm trial helped for a while but was a poorly implemented idea - there was no way to monatise those players.

[Bags]

And that kinda sums up the problem with an expensive fee. You feel more compelled to play to get your moneys-worth, and become more addicted to a game, which is obviously a bad thing.



I pay $15/mo for wow and play 1 - 2 nights a week... I do not feel compelled to log on just to get my money;'s worth in the least.

I imagine it will be around $15/mo, $28/2mo, $39/3mo, etc.

[Bhopx]

I still think having a required sub is going to be bad for a game competing in a space that has mostly 'free' games.

There needs to be an option for those who play casually or they wont play at all. Its not even just about the money remember. Low pops = no fun, no fun = canceled accounts and LOWER pops. Planetside had this problem. The perm trial helped for a while but was a poorly implemented idea - there was no way to monatise those players.


I disagree. What are you comparing Planetside to, Bad Company 2? BF2142? Those games really aren't comparable to a game with a persistent world with several hundred players per server. Planetside didn't lose subscribers because there weren't enough players, they lost subscribers because they introduced BFRs and other changes that impacted enjoyment of the game for a large segment of the player base. As long as the content is fun, people will pay to play it.

[Timantium]

OVER 9000!!!11!!!!!!!11oneone

Couldn't resist.

On a serious note, the sub price does need to be looked at. If they want to attract new players, it needs to be affordable (read: compete with FPS games on X-box Live).

How much is X-Box Live? A lot less than $14.99/month. This doesn't mean they have to straight up match the rates, since they will be offering a much more in depth FPS experience than halo, CS or CoD has, but they need to keep it competitive.

[Aractain]

I disagree. What are you comparing Planetside to, Bad Company 2? BF2142? BFRs

Pops were dropping before BFRs, even core combat. People just got bored for part of it but there was several reasons; most of the outfit I was in at the start quit before CC - most were because they could get a 'better' game for 'free'.

Which game? All of them. Planetside has gameplay from many different types of game. People came from Counter strike, UT/Quake, Operation Flashpoint or WWII Online, they came from EQ and the other MMOs out back then. They came from all over and most left. The few that bought the game and stayed (about 50k?) were decimated by terrible design.

This will have to be the BEST game on the market to justify any monthly price for the people I know.

[Bags]

A lot more people are willing to pay to play/pay microtransactions now. Look at the success of farmville, WoW, and TF2's item shop.

Everyone I know who has quit PS is willing to come back to PSN in a heartbeat, assuming it doesn't completely suck.

Look at it logically: For $15/mo you get unlimited access to planetside, versus $15 for a two hour movie.

[Hamma]

Aye LoTRO actually made a shitload more money now that it has MT's than it did before. I still think 9.99 is a better sweet spot for a game of this nature.

[Bags]

I'd love $9.99 but I'm sure they'll crunch the numbers to see if $15 is the best price point. Well, this is sony, so I really don't know what they'll do.

[Raymac]

I don't want to get into a microtransaction debate because there is already a heated thread on that, but I think they should be able to find a way to make it work. I think back to the Fodderside days and what a great injection of players it was. The MAJOR thing they need to take into account is eliminating hackers. Hackers will kill this game more than most since we are all in the game at the same time. There's no switching lobbies to avoid them.

Having said that, my answer to the subscription fee is this. I will tell SOE there will be no money, however, on their deathbeds, they will receive total consciousness, so they'll have that going for them...which is nice.

In reality though, whats likely going to happen is I'll just give SOE my credit card number and tell them to just leave me whatever little money they think I should have.

[Kirotan]

If you buy a copy you should be able to register and not have to enter a credit or game card before you can play like most MMO's. This way the FPS gamers that are used to playing subscription free get hooked on it in their first 30 days, and are more likely to pay and stay. I don't remember being able to activate accounts without a CC/gamecard up front...you usually get the first 30 days after they have your info. It's a small thing, but it might help.

The most I will pay is $14.99. I think 9.99 would be better and more appropriate, though.

[Jamini]

If they want to stay competitive, nothing over $7 a month. By simply requiring a sub they lose out on a huge pool of players who would play otherwise.

Honestly, they should really focus on the micro-transactions market. As shown in certain other popular, successful, shooters it's a great way to keep revenue flowing while not deterring people from buying and playing the game.

[Rbstr]

All the good MMOs cost about $15/mo.

If PS:N is good enough to play I'll pay that just fine.

If pay other successful shooters that use micro transactions you mean TF2 (haven't played any others), you're comparing apples and oranges. Valve doesn't have to host the whole game, for starters.

[Jamini]

You do realize since the release of the MannCo store, less than a year, they've made more than planetside has in the last several years, right? Go check youtube, there is a nice long interview with Gabe Newel explaining exactly how much money they've made in the micro-market. A recording from an distance learning economics class.

The fact of the matter is, people will pay money for the stupidest things, so long as they don't feel like they are forced to pay. TF2, LOTRO, DDO (to a limited extent), and a few others are all very sucessful AND profitable because of the microtransaction market, and you don't need to pay a dime after the initial price if you don't want too in order to play. (Hell, LOTRO is totally free to install even. Yet it has a reasonable playerbase AND updates that are coming out. All paid by micro-transactions.)

The fact of the matter is: subscriptions are an outdated and less effective means to make a game profitable. By not charging a sub, you attract more customers. By giving people the option to pay for extra things for their characters (and if you look at the TF2 example, they do NOT need to even have a real in-game use. Hats and keys(a lottery ticket for a extremely rare type of hat) are the hottest sellers. Not weapons, not even the weapons that you cannot create or get via achievements.) many, probably most, will do so at least once in their career. Longer term players are likely to do so more than once, especially if you regularly release content.

I understand that your comparison between TF2 and PS also has to take into account server maintainance, however I'd like to point out that TF2 has for the entirety of it's existence always had at least a partial team working on new content. Planetside has had ONE major expansion, and a few minor updates with a well-known and extremely tiny development team that no longer even exists. The fact of the matter is, the subscription model is inferior. End of story. Coda.

Edit: Another way to think of it. Remember the fodderside system? Before hacks became very easy to obtain it worked excellently for boosting pops and getting more players into the game. A microtransation system could work very well along such a thing. You can play for free up to BR6. Once you hit BR6 you can pay to unlock additional BR and certs (one-time fee)... or you could pay a lifetime subscription for an amount close to the same eventual price (and possibly at a discount) and have everything unlocked at the start. Additionally, alternative cosmetic options such as goggles, command earpeices, new hat types (standard Beret, officer's cap, helmet, and no helmet by default. Perhaps alternatively-styled helmets or even recolored versions of other empire helmets as buyable. Really with cosmetics the sky IS the limit) are released each month available for a very low price.

Hell, you could even tie an in-game currency like LOTRO does and give people in-store credit for achieving certain merits (Specifically, support merits, driver merits, air drop merits.) and even more if they refer a new player who buys a sub or makes any purchase in the store. (encouraging grassroots advertisement and expanding the player base.)

There are millions of ways that micro-transactions could be used to improve revenues after launch, and it need not be exclusive to a P2P model.

[Bags]

The fact of the matter is: subscriptions are an outdated and less effective means to make a game profitable.


WoW's five million non-chinese subscribers says otherwise.

[Timantium]

WoW's five million non-chinese subscribers says otherwise.

Yes, but does WoW make more money from subs or the paid character transfers, name changes, race changes, etc?

I bet EQ2 makes more money using station cash than they do for subs. Check out EQ2 Extended if you think SOE can't put together a F2P MT mmo.

[Bags]

Only Blizzard knows that.

[Aractain]

WoW has the best game on the market (for now at least, contenders start this year).
As such lots of people maintain accounts for even minor play time that they would not for a lesser game.

PSN is not competing with WoW, they are competing with CoD and BF3.

[Bags]

WoW has the best game on the market (for now at least, contenders start this year).
As such lots of people maintain accounts for even minor play time that they would not for a lesser game.

PSN is not competing with WoW, they are competing with CoD and BF3.

Well, to be honest that's not very stiff competition as both of those games are horrible. I don't see how a sci-fi shooter is competing with "realistic" shooters that are 16 vs 16.

[Wrath]

if PS:N went down the same microtransaction route as TF2 I wouldnt play it. I love tf2 have over 1000 hours played on it but even so hate that they brought that in. cool new weapons come on no problem all the guys with cash go buy.

quiet simply put people shouldnt be able to pay to be better then somebody. you talk about microtransactions like they can do no wrong but look at the mess that battlefield heroes became. the really OP weaons in the game could only ever be bought so the people with money always had an advatage and just ran about murdering everybody.

personally i'd prefer a sub format for one it detracts hackers from the game because they have to pay for it. though a mesh of the 2 might be the way they end up going a low sub fee topped up with micro transactions. if they do though I really hope they dont allow weapons or armour upgrades to be bought just cosmetic things.

[Raymac]

WoW's five million non-chinese subscribers says otherwise.

Using WoW as an example is not exactly fair because lets face it, they are in a class all their own when it comes to making money. It would be like telling a business man, "oh well it worked for Microsoft." Yeah its extremely successful, but they captured lightning in a bottle and if it was that easy, more people would do it.

[Kirotan]

PSN is not competing with WoW, they are competing with CoD and BF3

Well, to be honest that's not very stiff competition as both of those games are horrible.

Both game series have sold millions of copies. They are hardly "horrible." Granted, CoD is not for me, but I enjoy Bad Company 2 a great deal. There's a lot that PS:N could take game from games like these in terms of what makes them successful. Horrible is a strong word if, in your opinion, you merely dislike those games.

I don't see how a sci-fi shooter is competing with "realistic" shooters that are 16 vs 16.

They are not competing directly; they are competing for the money of consumers and for the same target audience. The bottom line is this: most people that PS:N would appeal to are already playing other FPS games. If PS:N is to be a success, it has to be good and have something that would make FPS gamers turn away from an established brand name that has entertained them for years.

Battlefield 3 will have 64 players(for PC). Project reality might move over to it, and they might raise the cap to 128 players. For many people, these are big enough battles. Although most of us here love PS for its massive battles, this cannot be the only feature to sell PS:N on, or it will flop. Sometimes more isn't always better. Some people actually play PS for reasons besides big battles (support, covert ops, etc.).

I can get behind a microtransaction model, as long as it's balanced. It should be largely for aesthetics and MINOR benefits(e.g. using a BC2 example, the default gun should not be like an F2000, and the guns you can buy are like an M416 or AN-94).

tl;dr I overwhelmingly support whichever payment model attracts and retains more overall players.

[duck]

Someone mentioned this, but I think it might be a good idea to have a cap at BR6 or BR10, and if you want to level higher you need to subscribe

It technically can be free to play, you can play for however long you want within the level cap, but you will be restricted to limited number of certs/weapons/vehicles

[Jamini]

quiet simply put people shouldnt be able to pay to be better then somebody. you talk about microtransactions like they can do no wrong but look at the mess that battlefield heroes became. the really OP weaons in the game could only ever be bought so the people with money always had an advatage and just ran about murdering everybody.

I believe I addressed this, several times. I'm fully against being able to simply buy an advantage. Ideally microtransactions would be used almost exclusively for cosmetic items. (Don't even try and feed me the "but nobody would buy that crap" line. People DO, and they LOVE it.)

Someone mentioned this, but I think it might be a good idea to have a cap at BR6 or BR10, and if you want to level higher you need to subscribe

It technically can be free to play, you can play for however long you want within the level cap, but you will be restricted to limited number of certs/weapons/vehicles

Fodderside was this. It worked great for boosting pops and keeping interest for a number of players who would not have stayed if they had to sub. The day it was dropped the PS population at the time was reduced by nearly a third.

How about this?

1. Free to download/install, like planetside is currently.
2. You need an account to play (so you must provide CC and personal info.) however playing up to BR6/CR2 is entirely free.
3. There is an in-game store, which allows you to buy up to BR15 CR4. It also sells cosmetic items, such as Outfit Decals, Alternative uniforms, Alternative Helmets, Minor Accessories, and alternate weapon skins. You can get points for this store from earning in-game awards, however each rank is substantially more than the last.
4. You get store points for referring a player to the game who pays at least $20 in the store, or subscribes.
5. You can subscribe monthly, for $10 a month. While subscribed you can have max Battle and Command Rank. Should your subscription lapse, any character over your current allowed BR/CR is unavailable to play.
6. You can buy a lifetime subscription. This costs ~$180. This is often packaged with other SoE lifetime subscriptions.

Players that wan to pay a sub for max BR and CR, can. Players that don't can spend their time both playing and advertising for credit with SoE. A rather expensive lifetime sub is also available for the truly hardcore players (It costs as much as a subscription for a year and a half, probably more if you discount buying more time at once.) Populations are high, and we have a higher fodder retention rate thanks to the more versatility/strength they have.

NOTE IN BIG BRIGHT COLORS
All ideas in this post are done assuming PS:N is going to have many features similar to planetside. For all I know, the game could be vanu chinchillas driving human fleshbags on our bent for world domination against terran alpacas and NC sheep. The entire thing played from a top-down perspective where each of us controls a squad in real-time tactical combat.

[Bags]

I'm pretty damn sure it's going to be 80% like the original.

[Timantium]

if PS:N went down the same microtransaction route as TF2 I wouldnt play it. I love tf2 have over 1000 hours played on it but even so hate that they brought that in. cool new weapons come on no problem all the guys with cash go buy.

quiet simply put people shouldnt be able to pay to be better then somebody. you talk about microtransactions like they can do no wrong but look at the mess that battlefield heroes became. the really OP weaons in the game could only ever be bought so the people with money always had an advatage and just ran about murdering everybody.

personally i'd prefer a sub format for one it detracts hackers from the game because they have to pay for it. though a mesh of the 2 might be the way they end up going a low sub fee topped up with micro transactions. if they do though I really hope they dont allow weapons or armour upgrades to be bought just cosmetic things.

I would only support MT for cosmetic upgrades and xp boost type items. Maybe even something like a small fee to recert (with free recerts every month or so).

[Bags]

I would only support MT for cosmetic upgrades and xp boost type items. Maybe even something like a small fee to recert (with free recerts every month or so).

Why do people always want companies to charge for things they already give away for free? Maybe they should also charge us $0.25 to pull a vehicle, $0.10 for a max, and $0.05 for Heavy Assault!

[EVILPIG]

It should be the standard SOE subscription.

[Sentrosi]

Agreed. Introducing micro-transactions into Planetside Next would move BFRs out of the #1 slot as "worst idea for Planetside ever".
I will pay up to $15/month for the next game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Timantium]

Why do people always want companies to charge for things they already give away for free? Maybe they should also charge us $0.25 to pull a vehicle, $0.10 for a max, and $0.05 for Heavy Assault!

I don't WANT them to charge for anything Bags. I am simply being realistic as to how a MT model could be profitable for the company. If the game is not profitable, they will stop investing development assets to it - see PS for an example.

Say everybody gets a free complete recert every month at max rank and every 3 BR as they progress. Otherwise, it cost $2 to recert. Why would that be unfair?

They could even leave the "drop one thing every 24 hours" to let people make minute adjustments. That way people who want to drop sniper for AV on a particular day could do that. I think this is totally reasonable.

Otherwise, there are tons of MT games that charge for things like XP boost. 200 percent BR boost for 3 days or for 9 game hours could cost $10.

The outfits bring a whole new way for them to put MT into the game as well. Charge for special outfit logos and other cosmetic things in the game. Then they could perhaps even let people turn in their own designs to use for outfit logos.

This kind of thing could be really profitable for Sony, which is a good thing. Those of us hardcore players wouldn't have to spend money if we didn't want to. Tons of people love to buy this stuff, that's why there are so many F2P MT games on the market.

How is a MT game like this going to hurt any of you who are not interested in buying the cosmetic upgrades?

[Wrath]

I believe I addressed this, several times. I'm fully against being able to simply buy an advantage. Ideally microtransactions would be used almost exclusively for cosmetic items. (Don't even try and feed me the "but nobody would buy that crap" line. People DO, and they LOVE it.)


dude seriously pisses me off when I get half quoted then people try and show there epeen by ignoring the rest of the post.

I said spefically at the end of my post i'd only support some a micro transaction system in PS if it was for cosmetic items so dont try and say i'm feeding you any BS about it not working.

i'm fully awake that people stump money for that crap all the way from wierd mounts in WOW to paint for weapons in TF2. problem is every FPS i've seen that uses the microtransaction model doesnt limit it to cosmetic items they give people the abilty to either buy OP guns or gain early access to weapons and items that would normally take months to find.

[Timantium]

dude seriously pisses me off when

I bet you get really pissed when people half quote you and then say what you said in the other half of your post.

I hope MT don't include items beyond cosmetic ones.

[Aractain]

problem is every FPS i've seen that uses the microtransaction model doesnt limit it to cosmetic items

How many how you seen where ONLY pay = top level guns? No way to do get it without paying (like earing in game money)?

Time = money is the basic concept on these games. The traditional model is everyone is equal but not everyone is equal. Some have more time and less money some have more money and less time. Some are just tight asses. Some really don't like 'wasting' time.

The bottom line of the equation is:
Company needs to make money | Gameplay can't be effected.

There is NO difference between fighting someone with the top weapons whether they bought them or grinded them.

As long as you CAN get them it makes no difference.

A 'free trial' with a cap and a sub is actually paying for levels btw...
A lot of people think that subs means constant development and updates, tell that to Planetside form 2006 onwards. Free to play REQUIRES the cosntant development of the game because nothing to buy = no profit.

Both models have good and bad aspects and SOE seems to be heading in the direction of the combined hybrid (See: Free realms/EQ2X). If DCUO starts losing subs soon, I full expect they have a working free to play model already good to go in case of that situation.

[Jonny]

Why do people always want companies to charge for things they already give away for free? Maybe they should also charge us $0.25 to pull a vehicle, $0.10 for a max, and $0.05 for Heavy Assault!

Agree. That kind of suggestion is like a company HQ charging you to breathe, because they own the air in the building.

[Aractain]

Agree. That kind of suggestion is like a company HQ charging you to breathe, because they own the air in the building.

They do own the air filtration/conditioning systems that make it a pleasnt place to be... They need to pay for that some how. Would you rather pay for the air you actually breathe or pay a sub for being able to breathe even though you are not in the building for most of the time?

:P

[Bags]

My $15 should pay for gameplay.

[Wrath]

I bet you get really pissed when people half quote you and then say what you said in the other half of your post.

I hope MT don't include items beyond cosmetic ones.

I really dont understand there point of your post here.

yes I agree with his statement as he does with mine about microtransactions the point isnt that. its the fact he's using half quotes to make it look like i'm coming down on the other side of an arguement that i'm not.

i'm sure it annoys you to when on internet forums when you get miss quoted when having a discussion with people.

[Timantium]

My $15 should pay for gameplay.

Ok, so your $15/month goes to all of the development to design the game and what else? Lets make a timeline for a standard subscription based MMO and see what we can discuss.

Launch - SOE is in way upside down on this investment - they spent the money up front to develop the game and now they need players to buy it in order to return on their investment. At this point the $15/month is good for them because everyone is paying to try out the new game.

First 90 days - SOE is starting to feel better about their investment as the game is popular and everything is (hopefully) working well technically. This is a good period for everyone.

Day 90 to 180 - New subs are starting to slow down, but your playerbase is still strong. This is the plateau phase where Sony starts to wonder what will happen during the next phase.

Day 180 to end of first year - this is where Sony realizes that they have to release new content to keep subscribers interested. Most new players are on some sort of free trial at this point. They are losing more subs than they are gaining during this phase.

Year 2 (expansion) - This will make or break the game. If the expansion is good then they will reacquire many of their lost subs (but not all) keep many of their dwindling subs and maybe attract a few new players. This phase the game is holding on, but they still don't have the same intensity of new subscribers they had when they launched. If the exansion is unpopular (see: core combat, jump to lightspeed, etc.), the game is doomed and all investment into development is ceased.

Year 3 and on (if there is one): See day 180 to year 2 and repeat.

This sub structure puts a strain on developers to somehow continue the progression of a perfectly balanced game while increasing the popularity. This means they have to make a change large enough to attract new subs, and this is exactly what destroys the balance and appeal of the original game. The result is they alienate many of their loyal subscribers and never attract the new subscriber base they yearn for.

Conversly with a MT game, the developers can work on smaller changes to entice new players or new income from the same players without changing the delicate balance of the popular game. It's an option guys, and I think it is one that could be better for the overall game in the long run, as long as the gameplay, etc. is fun from the start.

[Wrath]

Timantium over simplifing it and pointing out 1 methods faults where chosing the others strengths fact of the matter is if PS:N does down a MS route from the start they can't then go into a sub route later because people wont pay. and if they go down the MS route and cosmetic gear doesnt generate enough revenue to support the game they'll be forced into releasing content that will generate more money IE weapons and upgrades.

you go down a sub only route at the start then you can phase MS in later to generate income and maybe allow people to play for free if pop numbers start to fall. or you can do both from a start start with a low sub fee top it up with MS.

[Timantium]

Timantium over simplifing it and pointing out 1 methods faults where chosing the others strengths fact of the matter is if PS:N does down a MS route from the start they can't then go into a sub route later because people wont pay. and if they go down the MS route and cosmetic gear doesnt generate enough revenue to support the game they'll be forced into releasing content that will generate more money IE weapons and upgrades.

you go down a sub only route at the start then you can phase MS in later to generate income and maybe allow people to play for free if pop numbers start to fall. or you can do both from a start start with a low sub fee top it up with MS.

I want to do both from the start. I want a monthly sub that is competitive with console FPS games (X-box live). Then I want them to supplement their income (so they won't have to raise subs) by offering MT for cosmetic things.

My question remains: How is any subscriber getting hurt by playing a MT system instead of a monthly sub system?

How would a $15/month subscriber be hurt by lowering the sub to something like $8/month and adding cosemtic MT to supplement the income?

[Wrath]

i'm not saying doing a system with both would hurt anything just pointing out I believe an MS only system would hurt in my opinion in the end.

put your post above about sub systems is so baised against them it comes across like you dont want a sub at all. and for me atleast subs arent a bad thing. people LOTRO and other MMORPGs have all made good money switching to MS systems the problem is those games are in direct competion with WOW so they need to do something different and I think a lot of them as well are seeing star wars the old republic on the horizon are deciding that competing with WOW and TOR is going to be sucide so MS works for them.

with planetside its different theres no direct competion in terms of game play out there for it only the much smaller FPS. which dont offer the same experince that PS does so I dont see the need for it to go down the MS route.

like I said on my first post on this thread if sony are going to support the game with a full development team and bring out regular fun new content and experinces then I dont mind paying a moderate to high sub . if they are just gonna do what they did with the oringal PS and basically just release the game and do balaince patches for 3-4 years with an expansion thrown in then I dont see the way they can justife a $15 sub.

[Timantium]

with planetside its different theres no direct competion in terms of game play out there for it only the much smaller FPS. which dont offer the same experince that PS does so I dont see the need for it to go down the MS route.

Unfortunately, PS:N has to compete across multiple genres, the FPS genre AND the MMO genre. These smaller games are exactly who PS:N will compete against to attract FPS gamers, and they will attract some MMO gamers from the big games that are old like WoW and EQ2 (and probably many of the Heroes of Newerth, League of Legends and other smaller games that people have left WoW to play).

It doesn't matter if you and I know that PS:N offers a much better and bigger TEAM experience than the CoD and other console FPS offer, the people who have never played PS and love console FPS will need incentive to try it. A high monthly sub is not incentive for them to try it. Plus, many of those players suck at teamwork and, as a result, are the ones that get owned and quit after a month.

MMO players will need some kind of visual "I'm specialer than you" items that they can have to satisfy their needs for elite gear gaming. This is where cosmetic MT will hook them.

like I said on my first post on this thread if sony are going to support the game with a full development team and bring out regular fun new content and experinces then I dont mind paying a moderate to high sub . if they are just gonna do what they did with the oringal PS and basically just release the game and do balaince patches for 3-4 years with an expansion thrown in then I dont see the way they can justife a $15 sub.

On page one or two of this thread I said I would not mind paying a sub, I do in PS currently. I pay to play when I have time to play, I never unsubbed because I was dissatisfied with the game. I played 2003-2005, 2007-2009 and just resubbed last month.

However, we are not talking about how much you and I would pay (we would pay much more than someone who has never played PS and doesn't understand how special the concept is). Sony needs to come up with a way to attract the MOST players and keep them loyal - which would keep the income rolling and allow for the continued development you desire.

A blend of both a lower sub to entice FPS console gamers and MT to entice MMO elitists would work best.

[Wrath]

the incentive is down to the marketing planetside needs to be marketed it doesnt need a low sub to be a success just to get people told and sold on the USP. and thatd own to the add men

as for the mmo players there no different from the fps market, the oh look at my shiney loot in wow is the same as the new weapon unlocks and rewards they give you in most fps games nowadays.

[Traak]

I'd pay 50.

[Timantium]

the incentive is down to the marketing planetside needs to be marketed it doesnt need a low sub to be a success just to get people told and sold on the USP. and thatd own to the add men

as for the mmo players there no different from the fps market, the oh look at my shiney loot in wow is the same as the new weapon unlocks and rewards they give you in most fps games nowadays.

Except people don't stand around looking at people in the FPS console games. The "trinkets" that Sony can sell to MMO elitists in the MT market for station cash would more than carry the game.

And no, the incentive cannot be obtained through a clever advertising campaign and being told and sold. You might have the term marketing fuddled with advertising by the way. A lower sub or at least a competitive sub is exactly the type of marketing that will speak to console gamers who are bored with playing the same maps.

Instead of "hey man, come play this (bigger) game that costs twice as much as the one we play now," the marketing/advertising pitch becomes, "Hey man, this game costs about the same as X-Box Live and it is way better, more immersive, persistent, etc."

[Jonny]

They do own the air filtration/conditioning systems that make it a pleasnt place to be... They need to pay for that some how. Would you rather pay for the air you actually breathe or pay a sub for being able to breathe even though you are not in the building for most of the time?

:P

Way to miss my point

[Wrath]

Timantium if you dont think people can be talked into paying a little extra for somethinf unquie you've missed the lesson of eve, granted they have a massve about of multi accounters but they have one of the most expensive subs out there and have still managed to grow the game mostly on word of mouth and good press coverage.

simply selling the game on its unique nature and its sandbox type game play something PS can do also

[brinkdadrink]

With a monthly subscription atleast the Devs will focus on more things to add to the game to effectively change it up a little over time to keep people interested and possibly new gamer subs.

If MT are in place most of thier time will be focused on adding stuff to make money like a santa hat to buy or what not and hopefully that doesnt lead to adding things to effect the game. You already mentioned buying XP boosters which does effect the game upfront atleast.

I dont mind paying a monthly fee of hopefully 10 but probably be 15 and allow people to play up to BR5 or 6 and CR1 for free continuously. If their hooked eventually they will pay subs and if there not they wont pay if you make them anyway. More pop and people can at least get their friends to play who might sub up later.

[brinkdadrink]

Eve has a way to play for free using in-game cash which most people that i know do and hold 3-4 accounts for free. All games especially FPS games should have a way to play for free either later on or early on but restricted enough that if you dont pay something you will not be up to par.

[Wrath]

yeah eve does have a way to play for free I ran 3 accounts for nearly 2 years off plex's but it means having to spend nearly a billion isk a month on keeping your accounts going which is a lot of wasted profit.

issue is blink is that having a free to play version and a paided for is not really different from having a MT system where you can buy better armour and weapons .

also the other issue is having free 2 play alongside a sub game also makes it easier for hackers to create accounts and spoil the game.

[Timantium]

Timantium if you dont think people can be talked into paying a little extra for somethinf unquie you've missed the lesson of eve, granted they have a massve about of multi accounters but they have one of the most expensive subs out there and have still managed to grow the game mostly on word of mouth and good press coverage.

simply selling the game on its unique nature and its sandbox type game play something PS can do also

I guess I did miss the lesson of eve, since I've never bothered to pay to play it. Which is exactly my point. Many FPS players will do exactly what I chose to do - play the game that is most easily accessible to them and enjoy it.

It's not like the console FPS games are struggling to make money. Planetside has struggled to maintain playerbase for years. Selling the game is going to take a lot more incentive than simply telling people it has "unique nature" through word of mouth and press coverage.

If SOE's plan is to rely on word of mouth and good press coverage (which is never a guarantee), then they are planning to fail. I hope they are thinking about this game seriously enough to make it a LONG TERM investment instead of a smash-and-grab one.

Simply releasing a game (a sequel to a totally underpopulated MMO no less) with a standard monthly sub attached to it is simply not enough to entice new players to try it out.

Yes, all of us will play it, and we will love it. We will tell our friends to try it, about half of them will, and about half of those might play for a year. After that, there will be nothing UNLESS they start thinking differently and plan ahead by coming up with many more smaller ways to make money on the game instead of one tired way to make money.

**EDIT**
And for the record, I do support a monthly sub, just not a standard $14.99 sub. I want a sub that is more reflective of the FPS market (X-Box Live = competition, Sony should know all about this). I want this to go with a cosmetic MT market where people can use station cash to buy the "I'm special" stuff that MMO players freak out about. The sales from the MT store should be enough to replace, and hopefully for SOE, exceed the lost income from a lower sub.

And, I'll ask again since nobody ever answers, who is being hurt (what is the drawback) by SOE offering a lower monthly sub with a cosmetic MT store?

[CGar]

If the game is done very well, I'd be willing to pay $15, but I honestly think that is too steep for such a relatively small audience. If Planetside wants to get big, they need to make the entrance barriers as low as possible, while ensuring it is still profitable.

[Traak]

If the game is done very well, I'd be willing to pay $15, but I honestly think that is too steep for such a relatively small audience. If Planetside wants to get big, they need to make the entrance barriers as low as possible, while ensuring it is still profitable.

I dunno. I don't know if MMOFPS players are really so price-fixated as quality-fixated. If we wanted low prices, we would be console gamers, strictly, not PC gamers, where just getting in the game costs about double a console. Having an awesomely effective rig starts at about four times the console price. I think we are more enjoyable-experience-focused than minimum-price-enticed.

[Tikuto]

In my future I may not be able to get a subscription. I'll be praying it's a free-to-play... :(

[Bags]

If the game is done very well, I'd be willing to pay $15, but I honestly think that is too steep for such a relatively small audience. If Planetside wants to get big, they need to make the entrance barriers as low as possible, while ensuring it is still profitable.

If $15 is a big entrance barrier for players I suggest they look elsewhere for entertainment. Video games aren't the cheapest. Renting books from the library is free, however.

[Wrath]

Timantium xbox live is not competion for PS:N in any way shape of form and console FPS games arent making any money from x box live subs they are making a shed load of money from the MT the £9 for 3 new maps then £7 for a couple of new weapons. stuff we are PC gamers get for free because they dont have to support that games with servers.

and seriously man stop being so blind to how strong press and word of mouth is in the PC market. like i said look at games like eve. you want FPS explains look at battlefield the closest thing PS has to direction competion BF:1942 was a good game but wasnt a massive sucess it wasnt till a modding crew brought desert combat and press and word of mouth got around and people went back and bought the game.

the PC market is built around community strong communitys breed strong games and sony will create a strong communty like TF2 has like WOW has buy supporting there game fully with 1-2 monthly content patches and seasonal events keep throwing the gamers something new.

i'm not saying I dont like the idea of lower subs ofcourse I do but what i'm saying is if sony fully support the game like I said above. that i'd be willing to pay the higher then average fee for that support. ofcourse i'd like to pay as little as possable i'm just saying from my point of view its the support that the game gets that is key for me not some much the sub fee.

[Traak]

If $15 is a big entrance barrier for players I suggest they look elsewhere for entertainment. Video games aren't the cheapest. Renting books from the library is free, however.

Yes, I suggest a player's guide for Planetside, something I should have read a long time ago, but was too busy annoying people in global to bother with.

[Timantium]

If $15 is a big entrance barrier for players I suggest they look elsewhere for entertainment. Video games aren't the cheapest. Renting books from the library is free, however.

Yes, $15 sounds cheaper than a console game that costs $60 ($120 with a year of X-Box Live). But PS:N wants a persistent subscriber base to go with the persistent world.

$15 x 8 (months) = $120

So at $15 per month it takes 8 months before the console games are actually less of a barrier than a subscriber MMO. Plus, people have forgotten how much they paid for the console games two weeks after they buy them. So, after 2 weeks the console game feels free to play while the subscriber only game still costs $15 a month.

P.S. I love the library, I stopped buying books two years ago.

I shortened most of this down because parts didn't make sense or address anything that I was talking about.


the PC market is built around community strong communitys breed strong games and sony will create a strong communty like TF2 has like WOW has buy supporting there game fully with 1-2 monthly content patches and seasonal events keep throwing the gamers something new.

i'm not saying I dont like the idea of lower subs ofcourse I do but what i'm saying is if sony fully support the game like I said above. that i'd be willing to pay the higher then average fee for that support. ofcourse i'd like to pay as little as possable i'm just saying from my point of view its the support that the game gets that is key for me not some much the sub fee.

I understand the advantage of a subscriber driven game. Once again, I am not suggesting that there should not be a subscription for this game (sorry for the double negative, but not really - crap, now it's a triple negative).

And yes, if SOE wants to increase their playerbase in PS:N, the console FPS and the fantasy MMO markets are the ones they will need to invade. To do this, they will have to adjust their business model from the tired $14.99/month subscription game.

For the sake of the argument, let's say they were to do what you are asking them to do - charge $14.99/month and justify that price by releasing/supporting 1-2 monthly content patches. What kind of content can they add to a persistent world FPSMMO every 60 days?

We need to stop looking at this like it's a fantasy MMO like WoW, where developers depend on things like story and new PvE content to drive story. This is an entirely player vs. player game world. What could they possibly add that would extend the game without:


throw off the balance of the existing game
alienate new players from veterans
dilute battles by providing too many neutral targets


I understand that your argument and yes, I would like to see continual development and investment in PS:N. We have to realize that this is not the same animal as the vast majority of games who use the $14.99/month subscription fee. It is a unique gaming experience (which I love) and should be aproached from a unique marketing and business strategy.

[Wrath]

TF2 manage to do content patches upgrading and changing various classes every 3-4 months and worked very week for them. EVE does 2 free updates a year with content and features. to justify its £15 a month sub.

and for all your trying to distances PS from WOW in saying its not a fantasy game it is a science fiction game and while the history off the game was never really taken advantage off in the orginal game. its something that should be pushed for more in this game.

story events for players to take part in having a general idea of what an expansion or change is going to be before hand and doing events for long times before it happens to built up to it. the sundering is a massive thing that in the build up for it was brillaint more stuff like that for PS:N to keep people interested.

people used to buy FPS games to play the single player you know for the story of that single player. in a game like planetside having a story for the players to fight over adds that bit of depth and again adds something to it that no other game has right now.

[Traak]

TF2 manage to do content patches upgrading and changing various classes every 3-4 months and worked very week for them. EVE does 2 free updates a year with content and features. to justify its £15 a month sub.

and for all your trying to distances PS from WOW in saying its not a fantasy game it is a science fiction game and while the history off the game was never really taken advantage off in the orginal game. its something that should be pushed for more in this game.

story events for players to take part in having a general idea of what an expansion or change is going to be before hand and doing events for long times before it happens to built up to it. the sundering is a massive thing that in the build up for it was brillaint more stuff like that for PS:N to keep people interested.

people used to buy FPS games to play the single player you know for the story of that single player. in a game like planetside having a story for the players to fight over adds that bit of depth and again adds something to it that no other game has right now.

I wonder what story elements we could have that wouldn't have two empires blubbering and shrieking that they got stiffed.

How about no one even gets weapons other than knives and pistols for the first week. Then as the empires evolve, heavier and heavier weapons come along that intensify the combat over a long period of time. Instead of *boom* noob comes in, spends half an hour in VR, then can cert Vanguard and/or Unimax, how about none of us can get the really juicy stuff right off the bat?

Give us something to look forward to, something to fight for, and something to defend. As it is we have the last two, but the first one?

Further, weapons could rotate in and out, so we could have weeks of no HA, no AA, no CE, no MA, no SA, no MAXes, so people would have to actually THINK and plan ahead.

These are just brainstorming ideas. People might find after being deprived of their favorite drug for a week that AA or CE wasn't really that much fun to do ANYWAY, and they might drop it for something that is more interesting to them that they wouldn't have tried much before, if at all.

A week of:
no vehicles at all except Sunderer variants
no planes but Galaxies
no weapons but HA
no armor but RExo

Or, a week of
towers that randomly flip every five minutes, or at random intervals
bases that have five minute hack timers for LLU runs
bases that have invincible turrets
bases that have all doors jammed open, all terms indestructible, and all empire items available

A week of
everyone is a cloaker, and no radar operates for anyone
whole continents of interlink, where no one can hide from radar from anyone
deployable towers
deployable wall turrets
destructible bases
invincible tanks
unhackable anything
OS's only killing the person who tries to use them, and nobody else. Hey, let's make that a permanent feature!
No global comms
No comms at all
CR5's all being stuck at CR0, BR1.
CR5's all being stuck with one ability only: driving AMSes. No shooting, no globals, no CE, no hacking, no doing anything at all except AMSes and that is IT.

Days of
Night. Pitch black dark, not something anyone can use gamma to correct, because everything will be precisely the same shade: black. Except the sky, which can be deep purple. Only light will be via vehicle headlights and weapons flashes, jet exhausts, dropper trails, max jumpjets, etc.

Storms. Storms that kill radar, blow comms in anything but local, and disable looking at map. Visibility will be reduced to 100 feet, and sounds will be muffled beyond fifty. This needs to be something some creeps can't just flick a switch and eliminate. Placing code that allows devs to quickly see who is scoring sniper kills at 500m will show up the cheaters quickly.

Freezing weather: ice forms on all bodies of water, and everyone can just skate across. However, traction will be limited, so accelerations for vehicles will be reduced, but sliding will be possible. And, mines, boomers, AV, heavy weapons can blow holes in the ice, creating zones where vehicles can fall in. However, the holes quickly re-freeze.

Uber-max, where maxes are unkillable. Of course, no one in a max could hack anything, but they would be safe in their suit.

Max-only, but maxes can use any weapon, use REK, etc. Still slow and clumsy, but more varied in their available activities.

Run and gun: maxes can shoot anytime, running, walking, whatever.

Generator madness: Generators running around everywhere, bleating like sheep. The Vanu would win the kills for this one.

Infinite ammo: no one ever has to reload. Just drop a brick on the trigger button and go, go, go.

Vehicles have two states: full speed and stopped.

LLU guy can be carried in any vehicle, plane, whatever, go through WG's, Routers, puberty, whatever.

There are so many things, most of which wouldn't require any great coding genius to execute.

Get some variety. And give us something to look forward to, and something entertaining to laugh at. We could find out new fun things in the game, and have a ball if the only way we could win, literally, was by out-kamikazeing galaxies into enemies, or some other crazy modification.