PS2 Business Model [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

Malorn

2011-07-11, 05:09 AM

Little has been revealed about this, but I wanted to have a discussion about it all the same. First, starting with a few principles and lessons from the past.

* Most FPSers are used to not paying a subscription to play their games online. All of the Battlefield and COD games and just about every console and PC FPS ever has been "pay-once, play forever". Additionally, younger gamers may have parents that buy the games and they're used to buying games and not having subscriptions. The conclusion here is that having a mandatory subscription will cost PS2 players.

* PS1 got a great boost in players with the Fodder program, though the easy-to-abuse nature of this contributed to hackers and poor behavior since they could just make another player.

* WoW, World of Tanks, and others have proven that people will pay absurd amounts of money for vanity items and services. Want a sparklehorse or a vanity pet? A new skin for your tank? Redo character creation? Transfer servers? $20 each and they're yours!

* Many players and PS vets have no problem paying a subscription and prefer it over micro-transactions.

* Putting gameplay-altering options for microtransactions can have disastrous consequences and also cost PS2 players. We need only look at EVE Online and their largest subscription drop in MMO history when they got too greedy and tried to have players pay for special ammo that was better than all the other ammo, and convert their business model into a 'premium service' and other such foolish ideas. Some players have a visceral reaction to paying more money in order to compete and it likely won't go over well with the play-for-free crowd either.

From this it seems to me that the best options for PS2's business model would be the following:

1) Make it pay-once-and-play-for-free. This does a few things
* It gets SOE some of their investment for the game back immediately
* It provides a monetary barrier for creating extra characters for empire-hopping/spying, etc.
* It will go over well with traditional FPS players since this is the normal FPS business model.

2) Optional trade-in real-money for vanity items and services. List of possible services that many players will spend ridiculous amounts of money on that also do not affect gameplay one bit:
* Vanity items - various types of sunglasses, alternate uniforms, accessories, etc.
* Custom outfit logos
* Complete character re-spec
* Complete outfit re-spec (obv far more expensive)
* Character re-creation for changing appearance
* Server transfers
* Character re-names
* Double-speed learning time for certifications (for say a 2-week period)
* Double-xp gain for kills & captures

(the last two are the real money-makers from the play-for-free folks, the key is making those slightly more expensive individually than the subscription option below)

3) Provide an optional subscription service (the SOE Pass) that bundles some services & vanity items that the player would otherwise order a-la-carte.
* Gives double-speed learning time for certifications
* Double-xp gain for kills & captures
* Maybe some random vanity item awarded every couple months or something as a reward for subscribers.

I think a system like this encourages but does not mandate a subscription. Players don't have to pay anything else to play, but if they do their characters will advance faster. Additionally, vanity items and other services will further supplement revenue, as every player will likely buy something at some point in time, and some will buy lots.

This seems like the best balance for maximizing PS2 subscribers and providing players options for how much or how little they want to spend on PS2 that will be digestible to players.

Thoughts? Is this digestible to you? :)

CutterJohn

2011-07-11, 05:19 AM

I started a thread on this a while back. Most seemed to think that paying for stuff while playing for free was hideous, while saying gimped fodderside(Ah, whats in a name..) accounts alongside subscriptions are fine. A fine hypocrisy, I must admit.

I personally feel that supporting the game with a purchase game plus microtransaction model would be the best way to maintain good populations. There is zero barrier to jumping in and playing anytime you feel like.

Volw

2011-07-11, 05:21 AM

This.

DCUO is a great example of P2P subscription model failure.

The only issue with F2P I see is the amount of items available to purchase. TF2 in that aspect is great - pretty much hats and minor gear only. On the other hand we have WoT with 'premium' OP shells or APB Reloaded with OP weapons being sold for $30.

I'd also very much prefer if there was at least a box purchase required OR credit card verification. It's pretty much the only way to protect PS from waves of cheaters.

NCLynx

2011-07-11, 05:23 AM

* Double-speed learning time for certifications (for say a 2-week period)
* Double-xp gain for kills & captures

(the last two are the real money-makers from the play-for-free folks, the key is making those slightly more expensive individually than the subscription option below)

3) Provide an optional subscription service (the SOE Pass) that bundles some services & vanity items that the player would otherwise order a-la-carte.
* Gives double-speed learning time for certifications
* Double-xp gain for kills & captures
* Maybe some random vanity item awarded every couple months or something as a reward for subscribers.

Pay-2-win FTL, it'll be either or.

The double xp/cert speed in the non-subscription part sounded way to much like buying gold in WoW to me.

The subscription vs play for free incentives don't weigh out at all, especially when something they've emphasized is being able to keep up with friends even while offline. They're not going to just throw a payment option into that.

Smaller sub no benefits at all + one time optional fee for strictly vanity things would be awesome, and dammit I'd probably buy all the vanity stuff too >.>

EDIT: And if they make it buy gameplay hours model, I'm screwed. I've been known to AFK once in a while, don't want to have to log off everytime I want to go make some food real quick because it'll waste my gameplay time that I paid for.

SKYeXile

2011-07-11, 05:26 AM

Yea I agree, free to play is no longer the future or the past, its the now. SOE has done incredibility well with free realms, while like you say, its probably a good idea to charge an upfront fee. But you could give people trial accounts that cannot effect cross realming, other than tell people where forces are, whatever, that would be perhaps rather complicated though.

Malorn

2011-07-11, 05:37 AM

Pay-2-win FTL, it'll be either or.

The double xp/cert speed in the non-subscription part sounded way to much like buying gold in WoW to me.

The subscription vs play for free incentives don't weigh out at all, especially when something they've emphasized is being able to keep up with friends even while offline. They're not going to just throw a payment option into that.

Smaller sub no benefits at all + one time optional fee for strictly vanity things would be awesome, and dammit I'd probably buy all the vanity stuff too >.>

EDIT: And if they make it buy gameplay hours model, I'm screwed. I've been known to AFK once in a while, don't want to have to log off everytime I want to go make some food real quick because it'll waste my gameplay time that I paid for.

Games already do the "pay money for faster xp gain" and it doesn't affect the game negatively at all. People are trading money for time, and for some people that is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Not everyone has time, and not everyone has the money to throw at it, but it isn't required. It's a convenience. Convenience and vanity items are OK to charge for.

Gameplay altering advantages like buying special ammo or weapons would go under the "bad idea" category - I'm explicitly not talking about that and clearly stated so.

The problem with a fodderside-like system is that once people reach the 'cap' they tend to quit. That is just a trial-system, not a true free-to-play solution.

dachlatte

2011-07-11, 05:40 AM

Games already do the "pay money for faster xp gain" and it doesn't affect the game negatively at all. People are trading money for time, and for some people that is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Not everyone has time, and not everyone has the money to throw at it, but it isn't required. It's a convenience. Convenience and vanity items are OK to charge for.

Gameplay altering advantages like buying special ammo or weapons would go under the "bad idea" category - I'm explicitly not talking about that and clearly stated so.

The problem with a fodderside-like system is that once people reach the 'cap' they tend to quit. That is just a trial-system, not a true free-to-play solution.

this

NCLynx

2011-07-11, 05:47 AM

Not everyone has time, and not everyone has the money to throw at it, but it isn't required. It's a convenience.

Offline training was put in for a reason.

After all the emphasis on player skills > all else I still can't see them implementing anything purchasable things that enhance anything other than aesthetics.

2x XP gain/cert time decrease, however minor or major that may be (can't exactly tell yet can we) it's still way more than an aesthetic change.

CutterJohn

2011-07-11, 05:47 AM

Pay-2-win

Never understood this philosophy. Sure you have to pay to be 100%. So? If it were a subscription model, you couldn't play at all without paying.

Subscription

Pay = Play
No pay = No play

Microtransaction

Pay = Play at 100% capability
No pay = Play at 75% or whatever capability.

I can understand disliking a particular implementation of microtransaction if the devs were massively overcharging for stuff, or offered stuff thats wildly overpowered, but thats a reason to dislike those game devs, not the system. I've seen plenty of free to play games based off of microtransactions that were perfectly serviceable.

If you're playing and not paying, then how can you bitch about buying stuff to be more powerful when the alternative is you just couldn't play?

Malorn

2011-07-11, 05:54 AM

2x XP gain/cert time decrease, however minor or major that may be (can't exactly tell yet can we) it's still way more than an aesthetic change.
Its not cosmetic - it's convenience.

If it's easier to swallow you could look at the subscription-payers as gaining "normal time" while free-to-play gain "half time". So you can play for free but it will be less convenient to do so. And that will be perfectly fine for the people who absolutely don't want to pay any more for the game. They can always pay for other stuff later or change their minds.

Taking longer to level doesn't affect the game. People will learn at different rates no matter what you do. People will start the game later than others. People will play online more (training is faster online).

The "2x" was just something I threw out there because I've seen other games do that. It's big enough to warrant putting out some cash if a player wants to speed up their progress, but ultimately doesn't affect your character's power at all. He will eventually get to the same destination - it'll just take longer. That isn't a power change.

The beauty of planetside was that you could go play with your friends at BR1 straight away and I don't see that changing. You don't need to do heavy certing to "keep up" with your friends. Nothing is holding you back from them.

NCLynx

2011-07-11, 05:55 AM

@CutterJohn

Because it enforces "Well if you REALLY wanted to be at your best you'd give us money." whereas subscription is universal.

I'm not saying subscription is the best method, but I also think a lot of people underestimate how many people out there are ok with subscriptions. I'd be willing to bet a good majority of the people who play CoD, BF, and any other free shooter also have played WoW for at least a month.

CoD and BF also don't have things that allow you to pay to rank up faster (that I know of, correct me if I'm wrong).

2coolforu

2011-07-11, 05:56 AM

NCLynx

2011-07-11, 06:03 AM

Let's have plain old monthly sub, microtransactions have never worked and F2P can't support the wide scale and constant updates we want

Monthy sub all the way, with at least some F2P aspect (e.g. constant reserves system)

Someone will undoubtedly comment on how the reserves brought tons of hackers etc, but honestly this time around since they have a 3rd part security system taking care of that I wouldn't mind seeing how they handle hackers.

If they're not terrible then reserves wouldn't be terrible either.

Volw

2011-07-11, 06:05 AM

Credit card verification when creating an account = problem solved.

(Yes, CC can be cloned etc etc - but it prevents majority of people from hacking = win.)

Also, mind with the certificate system revamp, there will be more incentives to have a 'non-reserve' account. In PS1 it was possible to use all equipment, even at BR10. With a skill tree system, it will no longer be possible.

2coolforu

2011-07-11, 06:19 AM

Someone will undoubtedly comment on how the reserves brought tons of hackers etc, but honestly this time around since they have a 3rd part security system taking care of that I wouldn't mind seeing how they handle hackers.

If they're not terrible then reserves wouldn't be terrible either.

Reserves also brought the game back to life, with reserves I saw 2 poplocks and throughout the entire program I didn't see THAT many hackers, I mean it wasn't like one a day or anything as it would be in CoD, they were pretty few and far between.

NCLynx

2011-07-11, 06:54 AM

Reserves also brought the game back to life, with reserves I saw 2 poplocks and throughout the entire program I didn't see THAT many hackers, I mean it wasn't like one a day or anything as it would be in CoD, they were pretty few and far between.

I wasn't bashing it in anyway, I agree I never saw so many hackers that it made me want to kill myself. Maybe log off for that day but oh well. Some could be more annoying than others though, hah.

Gandhi

2011-07-11, 06:58 AM

Worth mentioning that Higby said they have a team working on security this time around, and there'll be some as yet unannounced third party anti-hacking software used (Steam anyone? EQ is already using it).

artifice

2011-07-11, 06:59 AM

The free to play business model is a bubble, a knee jerk reaction to the the dwindling pay to play marketshare. It won't last. There are dozens of typical free to play games coming out and all these pay to play games are moving in that direction. i can't imagine the market supporting this bloat in the long term.

The Guild Wars 2 business model of buy to play is where the market will move toward. It is the middle ground between these two extremes.

As for me, I refuse to play a game that is pay to win like pretty much all the free to play games. I also can't justify paying a monthly fee. I am willing to buy the game at retail price and I would even buy cosmetic items in the cash shop, but any hint of pay to win and I won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

Volw

2011-07-11, 07:31 AM

My understanding is GW2 will be moving towards F2P as well. Even GW1 did to some extent with expansion packs. Something that's not really valid in an MMOFPS. I think core combat proved it well enough.

Theres no economical way to support a full scale MMO based on box sales only.

MMO development costs are typically $50m+ and that's not including marketing expenditure which is usually a lot. Could easily be another $50 mil.

In order for SOE to get only the development cash back, they'd need to sell at the very least over a million copies. Age of Conan, which was incredibly overhyped reached about that level.

Even if they sell a million, what about marketing expenditure and what about post-release support?

artifice

2011-07-11, 07:39 AM

My understanding is GW2 will be moving towards F2P as well. Even GW1 did to some extent with expansion packs. Something that's not really valid in an MMOFPS. I think core combat proved it well enough.

Guild Wars 2 is the same business model that Guild Wars always had. Revenue is generated from box sales, expansions, and cosmetic item shop.

Theres no economical way to support a full scale MMO based on box sales only.

ArenaNet thinks they can.

2coolforu

2011-07-11, 07:45 AM

Guild Wars 2 is the same business model that Guild Wars always had. Revenue is generated from box sales, expansions, and cosmetic item shop.

ArenaNet thinks they can.

There's a reason Planetside has a monthly cost and EVE online has a huge monthly cost, its because dedi servers are expensive as hell. If you think you can run a server capable of hosting 100,000 FPS players for 6 years on box sales then you are deluded.

Having used small scale dedi's I can tell you the money has to come from somewhere

CutterJohn

2011-07-11, 07:55 AM

Guild Wars 2 is the same business model that Guild Wars always had. Revenue is generated from box sales, expansions, and cosmetic item shop.

ArenaNet thinks they can.

They also do an absolute ton of instancing. its a very server friendly game. PS.. Not so much. PS would definitely need either subs or solid item shop income to be viable.

Volw

2011-07-11, 07:56 AM

Guild Wars 2 is the same business model that Guild Wars always had. Revenue is generated from box sales, expansions, and cosmetic item shop.

ArenaNet thinks they can.

What exactly is the difference between having a cash shop and having a periodic expansion?

artifice

2011-07-11, 07:59 AM

There's a reason Planetside has a monthly cost and EVE online has a huge monthly cost, its because dedi servers are expensive as hell. If you think you can run a server capable of hosting 100,000 FPS players for 6 years on box sales then you are deluded.

Having used small scale dedi's I can tell you the money has to come from somewhere

Except ArenaNet is doing just that. TRION openly admitted that most of the monthly fee does not go towards hosting costs when their beta testers pointed out Guild Wars 2, but towards "updating the game regularly for a better experience" as they put it.

The fact is, server and bandwidth prices have dropped dramatically over the years. In the 90s, Neverwinter Nights costed $6 dollars per hour to play.

They also do an absolute ton of instancing. its a very server friendly game. PS.. Not so much. PS would definitely need either subs or solid item shop income to be viable.

Guild Wars 2 is going to have as much instancing as World of Warcraft. Dungeons and housing only.

Wakken

2011-07-11, 08:08 AM

I would personally like it to be like Arenanet does it. A payment for the game, and thats it unless you want to buy something as microtransactions. Maybe skins, effects etc. If they are going for microtrans however, do not give us stuff to buy that effect gameplay. No overpowered weapons or armor or something like that.

I showed my friend the Q&A video yesterday and that got him very interested. I axplained to him further what planetside 1 was all about and I hope SOE dont screw this one up.

However, being a student and all I think the Guildwars/ArenaNet system would appeal to me the most

Volw

2011-07-11, 08:18 AM

Wakken

2011-07-11, 08:26 AM

Once I see how many players per instance GW2 supports and what is exactly their business model I can change my mind. GW1 is a glorified server browser and it is not an MMO. (Nonetheless, I do love the game and can't wait for GW2!)

I thought it was confirmed that GW2 wont have any instances? Atleast not for every zone like gw1 had. (open world and citys etc)

And does it really matter anyways? We're talking about the business model and what people prefer/want in PS2?

krnasaur

2011-07-11, 08:30 AM

I would be the guy to buy all of the vanity stuff for the game.

and when looking at game communities, P2P is way above F2P

artifice

2011-07-11, 08:30 AM

Can we stop comparing a game that at the current stage has instance size smaller than non-MMO games with a game that is expected to support 1000 player battles please?

Once I see how many players per instance GW2 supports and what is exactly their business model I can change my mind. GW1 is a glorified server browser and it is not an MMO. (Nonetheless, I do love the game and can't wait for GW2!)

As for being a student - I was one a few years back - a pint of beer costs £3, subscription's usually less than £10. Is dozens of hours of gaming worth 3 pints? I think you have an answer there.

I think you are confusing instances and zones again.

I hope you realize that SOE goals for PlanetSide 2 is a 1000 players per continent as they stated in the Q&A session.

Guild Wars 2 persistent World vs World PVP will have several hundred on each of the three server teams. Some of their dynamic events scale up to a 100 people and that is just one of many dynamic events in a single area.

Gandhi

2011-07-11, 08:32 AM

If I had to choose I'd go for a subscription model set at $10 a month. Planetside is unique, there's really no other MMO like it and for that reason I think it can still do well with a pay to play model.

F2P would obviously bring in more players, but that doesn't necessarily mean more profit and it definitely doesn't mean a better community. I'd also be dead set against a cash shop that offers anything beyond cosmetic items, and I think that's a feeling shared by a lot of people considering the ruckus EVE's cash shop caused when it wasn't made clear that it would be vanity items only.

artifice

2011-07-11, 08:38 AM

If I had to choose I'd go for a subscription model set at $10 a month. Planetside is unique, there's really no other MMO like it and for that reason I think it can still do well with a pay to play model.

You mean like Tribes Universe? PlanetSide 2 is going to have some direct competition.

F2P would obviously bring in more players, but that doesn't necessarily mean more profit and it definitely doesn't mean a better community. I'd also be dead set against a cash shop that offers anything beyond cosmetic items, and I think that's a feeling shared by a lot of people considering the ruckus EVE's cash shop caused when it wasn't made clear that it would be vanity items only.

I am completely against a cash shop with more than cosmetic items as well, but I am realistic. SOE is notorious for their pay to win cash shop in their P2P game Everquest 2.

Volw

2011-07-11, 08:38 AM

I thought it was confirmed that GW2 wont have any instances? Atleast not for every zone like gw1 had. (open world and citys etc)

And does it really matter anyways? We're talking about the business model and what people prefer/want in PS2?

Question is how many players per zone is supported until it gets instanced.

PS2 is aimed to support 1000 players per zone.

What's the number on GW2? We don't know. What's the exact business model of GW2? We don't know exactly, but probably F2P model, with expansions and cash store instead of a typical F2P cash store. Which, end of the day, is EXACTLY the same.

Wakken

2011-07-11, 08:41 AM

Gandhi

2011-07-11, 08:45 AM

You mean like Tribes Universe? PlanetSide 2 is going to have some direct competition.
I don't know, I haven't seen much hard info on TU beyond supporting 100 players on the same map. We'll have to wait and see if it can offer the same gameplay Planetside does.

2coolforu

2011-07-11, 08:45 AM

Yeah probably yes, I'd bet they're doing the same as for GW1. And that is the business model I personally would prefer

So we can either have a monthly sub or an item store, I don't want planetside to turn into TF2 'World of Hats' and you are talking about SOE who have a history of making Pay 2 Win item stores. Monthly sub is exactly the same, the same money goes in (in fact we could end up paying less than if we were bombarded by hats, shop items and pay to play expansions) and SOE gets a constant stream of money.

As for dedi's being cheap I play with a group of about 600 people, our yearly dedi server fees go into 5 figures and that's on simple to run games like CoD although I suppose we do have ARMA servers.

artifice

2011-07-11, 08:48 AM

Question is how many players per zone is supported until it gets instanced.

PS2 is aimed to support 1000 players per zone.

What's the number on GW2? We don't know. What's the exact business model of GW2? We don't know exactly, but probably F2P model, with expansions and cash store instead of a typical F2P cash store. Which, end of the day, is EXACTLY the same.

Well, there are three teams in the GW2 World vs World PVP. Each team is going to have several hundred players. Several means more than 2. So that is at least 900 players. As I said before, some of their dynamic events scale up to 100 players. An example is the Shatterer that many have already got to experience. It is just one huge raid boss mob in a small area of a very large zone.

They also openly said that their cash shop is purely cosmetic in nature. Such as unlocking color dyes, item appearance swapping items, as well as things like more character slots.

So we can either have a monthly sub or an item store, I don't want planetside to turn into TF2 'World of Hats' and you are talking about SOE who have a history of making Pay 2 Win item stores. Monthly sub is exactly the same, the same money goes in (in fact we could end up paying less than if we were bombarded by hats, shop items and pay to play expansions) and SOE gets a constant stream of money.

As for dedi's being cheap I play with a group of about 600 people, our yearly dedi server fees go into 5 figures and that's on simple to run games like CoD although I suppose we do have ARMA servers.

If SOE is going to sell pay to win items, they will do it regardless of whether they charge you a monthly fee.

2coolforu

2011-07-11, 08:50 AM

Why would they? Why would they have an item shop for revenue if there is a monthly sub, you suggested a cash shop as an alternative and I'm saying Pay 2 Win items are not worth the loss of monthly subs. Haven't you been looking at PC Gaming news recently and the huge uproar at cash shops in EVE and CCP's plans to bring in Pay 2 Win items and the internal memos.

Volw

2011-07-11, 08:52 AM

*sigh* :cry:

Again. What is the difference between the two:

1) Cash store which sells 'better' weapons.

2) Expansion pack which has better weapons in it.

2coolforu

2011-07-11, 08:56 AM

In fact SOE have been hinting that they like EVE Online's method which is to have a monthly sub along with regular large updates that are basically free 'expansions'. The method works really well and they even updated and overhauled the graphics engine - this seems to be exactly what SOE are planning so I would much prefer to have a monthly fee and then have hats and expansions added for free as they have already been covered by my monthly payments.

Wakken

2011-07-11, 08:58 AM

So we can either have a monthly sub or an item store, I don't want planetside to turn into TF2 'World of Hats' and you are talking about SOE who have a history of making Pay 2 Win item stores. Monthly sub is exactly the same, the same money goes in (in fact we could end up paying less than if we were bombarded by hats, shop items and pay to play expansions) and SOE gets a constant stream of money.

As for dedi's being cheap I play with a group of about 600 people, our yearly dedi server fees go into 5 figures and that's on simple to run games like CoD although I suppose we do have ARMA servers.

I am just saying my opinion on the matter. It doesnt have to be hats, it can be skins, effects, armor patterns, doodads to add to your armor/weapon etc.

A few examples I will pick off my mind.

Different armor patterns, stripes, camo patern etc.
Different colour on bullet tracers
Doodads on your armor
doodads on your weapons, maybe a smilie face? (I'd want that one)

there is tons of cosmetic stuff that wouldnt really ruin the game feeling if you put some thought into it.

And I'm not sure I agree with some of this "f2p community is a worse community". It doesnt really have too. Everyone who have money to pay a monthy fee is great guys? And all who prefer not paying a monthy fee are idiots? Dont really follow that logic

artifice

2011-07-11, 08:58 AM

I don't know, I haven't seen much hard info on TU beyond supporting 100 players on the same map. We'll have to wait and see if it can offer the same gameplay Planetside does.

It is supposed to have both a battle arena-type PVP with a 100 players and a persistent world that is based on territory control.

Another one coming out is Line of Defense.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/02/01/massivelys-exclusive-look-at-line-of-defense-a-new-mmofps/

Why would they? Why would they have an item shop for revenue if there is a monthly sub, you suggested a cash shop as an alternative and I'm saying Pay 2 Win items are not worth the loss of monthly subs. Haven't you been looking at PC Gaming news recently and the huge uproar at cash shops in EVE and CCP's plans to bring in Pay 2 Win items and the internal memos.

Because it is SOE and they do stuff like that. Take a look at Everquest 2's cash shop. Not their F2P version, their P2P cash shop that predated it.

Gandhi

2011-07-11, 09:02 AM

*sigh* :cry:

Again. What is the difference between the two:

1) Cash store which sells 'better' weapons.

2) Expansion pack which has better weapons in it.
If the expansions are sold separately then I don't think there is one, and I think the paid expansions offering better weapons were a big part of what killed Planetside. People just don't like pay to win systems, especially if they're put on top of a monthly subscription.

artifice

2011-07-11, 09:03 AM

*sigh* :cry:

Again. What is the difference between the two:

1) Cash store which sells 'better' weapons.

2) Expansion pack which has better weapons in it.

You've never bought an expansion pack for an MMORPG? Expansions exist regardless if it is P2P or B2P.

Volw

2011-07-11, 09:11 AM

@Gandhi, yep, it's directed at artifice who doesn't seem to get the fact GW1 had cash shop camouflaged into an expansion.

You've never bought an expansion pack for an MMORPG?

I'm asking you what's the difference.

You either pay for an item in the cash shop OR you go and buy an expansion pack. What is the difference?

It's exactly the same business model. You are encouraged to spend more money on a game in order to maintain (or gain) competitive advantage. It doesn't matter if it's via cash store, expansion packs or whatever else.

artifice

2011-07-11, 09:15 AM

@Gandhi, yep, it's directed at artifice who doesn't seem to get the fact GW1 had cash shop camouflaged into an expansion.

I'm asking you what's the difference.

You either pay for an item in the cash shop OR you go and buy an expansion pack. What is the difference?

It's exactly the same business model. You are encouraged to spend more money on a game in order to maintain (or gain) competitive advantage. It doesn't matter if it's via cash store, expansion packs or whatever else.

Ultimately the difference is that you need to play the content to obtain the better items. There isn't instant gratification of just buying an uber weapon and having it appear in your mail or inventory. It has been that way since Ultima Online. It is just the fact of life for MMO games.

Volw

2011-07-11, 09:22 AM

Ultimately the difference is that you need to play the content to obtain the better items. There isn't instant gratification of just buying an uber weapon and having it appear in your mail or inventory. It has been that way since Ultima Online. It is just the fact of life for MMO games.

That's hardly a difference from business model point of view. Plus, we've already had Core Combat and I don't think anyone wants to see it again.

Anyway, what exactly is so unique in Anet approach with GW1/2?

It's as F2P as any other F2P game out there.

artifice

2011-07-11, 09:25 AM

That's hardly a difference from business model point of view. Plus, we've already had Core Combat and I don't think anyone wants to see it again.

Anyway, what exactly is so unique in Anet approach with GW1/2?

It's as F2P as any other F2P game out there.

That's some hyperbole. Every P2P MMORPG in existence has expansion packs. You should be asking them how they can justify a monthly fee and charging you for expansions.

Also, if you can't see the distinction, I can't help you.

BlazingSun

2011-07-11, 09:33 AM

artifice

2011-07-11, 09:38 AM

SOE says they have a 3 year plan for Planetside 2 after it's launch. The only way to somewhat guarantee that are constant subscriptions. I'd be more than surprised if it was something else.

It's true that FPS players are not really used to pay subscriptions, but I think in the year 2011 or 2012 it's much more accepted and common to do so, than it was back in 2003.

Will consumers really pay though? With all the P2P games switching to F2P, it looks like it is much harder to get people to spend $15 a month. Most people who do invest in a monthly fee do so for only a single game. So PlanetSide 2 needs to either generate its userbase from a crowd that isn't already paying $15 a month or cannibalize a crowd that is. An even smaller crowd will subscribe to two games at once because of the psychology of wanting to get your $15 fee worth out of the game.

I have a hard time believing that they will convince people paying $15 a month for their MMORPG to give it up and play a FPS instead.

NCLynx

2011-07-11, 09:49 AM

artifice

2011-07-11, 09:54 AM

Most of the P2P going F2P only mean F2P to a certain point but then you gotta cough up the dough if you want the rest of the game, except Guild Wars maybe.

I am certainly aware of how crappy most F2P games are in general, but that doesn't change the fact that the P2P market hasn't been flourishing.

Hamma

2011-07-11, 10:09 AM

They consider hackers one of their top priorities. I things will be different when it comes to that this time around. Every one of them I talked to talked about how important it is.

BlazingSun

2011-07-11, 10:09 AM

Will consumers really pay though? With all the P2P games switching to F2P, it looks like it is much harder to get people to spend $15 a month. Most people who do invest in a monthly fee do so for only a single game. So PlanetSide 2 needs to either generate its userbase from a crowd that isn't already paying $15 a month or cannibalize a crowd that is. An even smaller crowd will subscribe to two games at once because of the psychology of wanting to get your $15 fee worth out of the game.

I have a hard time believing that they will convince people paying $15 a month for their MMORPG to give it up and play a FPS instead.

I doubt that the typical MMORPG players are the target audience for this game.

I personally don't think that F2P would work out that well. First of all it would probably not guarantee said 3 year development plan. The revenue would have to come from microtransactions. I'm currently playing a F2P game and it really has some balance issues as you do not stand a chance against certain bought weapons with your basic equipment. I think this goes for a lot of the F2P games - the things you offer to the playerbase via microtransactions must have a certain appeal (otherwise you'd make 0 money) and thus create the unbalance. And this goes against the concept of the 'BR1 must stand a chance vs BR20' concept of Planetside.

I also think SOE is a bit conservative and if they learned one lesson from the first Planetside it is that some people are willing to pay subscriptions for years even when the development and support for the game has long ceased.

artifice

2011-07-11, 10:24 AM

I doubt that the typical MMORPG players are the target audience for this game.

I personally don't think that F2P would work out that well. First of all it would probably not guarantee said 3 year development plan. The revenue would have to come from microtransactions. I'm currently playing a F2P game and it really has some balance issues as you do not stand a chance against certain bought weapons with your basic equipment. I think this goes for a lot of the F2P games - the things you offer to the playerbase via microtransactions must have a certain appeal (otherwise you'd make 0 money) and thus create the unbalance. And this goes against the concept of the 'BR1 must stand a chance vs BR20' concept of Planetside.

I also think SOE is a bit conservative and if they learned one lesson from the first Planetside it is that some people are willing to pay subscriptions for years even when the development and support for the game has long ceased.

A three year plan can mean expansions as much as micro transactions or simple updates. I think a typical F2P business model where you buy power would be a stupid idea in terms of game play, but I don't think P2P is exactly a business model that players will be lining up to play.

krnasaur

2011-07-11, 10:26 AM

for everyone worrying about a pay2win model...

Seeing how adamant that skill is the priority factor in determining ability, not gear, i HIGHLY doubt that it will be a pay to win system.

NCLynx

2011-07-11, 10:27 AM

A three year plan can mean expansions as much as micro transactions or simple updates

Except it's already been confirmed, large updates rather than expansion packs.

BlazingSun

2011-07-11, 10:29 AM

for everyone worrying about a pay2win model...

Seeing how adamant that skill is the priority factor in determining ability, not gear, i HIGHLY doubt that it will be a pay to win system.

But that's what it usally turns out to be. If the stuff you offer for sell is only as good as the stuff you get for free, no one will pay for it.

Don't get me wrong ... I'm not keen on paying a subscription, but it seems to be the only thing that really works at the moment.

Goku

2011-07-11, 10:29 AM

* Most FPSers are used to not paying a subscription to play their games online. All of the Battlefield and COD games and just about every console and PC FPS ever has been "pay-once, play forever". Additionally, younger gamers may have parents that buy the games and they're used to buying games and not having subscriptions. The conclusion here is that having a mandatory subscription will cost PS2 players.

While not exactly a MMO fee, but Xbox Live requires you to pay an active sub in order to play online games. This does cover all the games instead of just say CoD or BF of course. With that I would not totally put it past people considering doing a monthly sub.

I do not see problems with a cosmetic and convenience being part of a shop either. Someone want a fancy pink hat? Let them have it for $10. A guy wants double XP for a week? Let him have it. None of this is game breaking. Especially if there is no CR system in place.

Maybe the best way to just to mix it all together with the shop and lowering the monthly fee. Having the shop may allow for say a $5 sub while keeping away hacks. I still think there should be some kind of free portion if you pay for the game, but limits your BR. With that limitation and getting rid of it for $5 a month, I think a player would have no problem with that.

Slightly off topic, but in regards to respec. Has it been said whether or not it will be possible to reset skills that were trained? I know SOE said you can pick multiple classes, but if you can't respec skills you are basically trapped in that role you made yourself. I can imagine many players getting higher ranks and going WTF I messed my char up then quitting if they cannot redo their char.

NCLynx

2011-07-11, 10:32 AM

Something in this debate that keeps coming up is aesthetic stuff for $$$. Isn't the reason for us not being able to hack enemy vehicles because they couldn't afford to render all those vehicles in different colors etc? I doubt we'll see much of an aesthetic difference $$$ OR free for a while after release.

artifice

2011-07-11, 10:32 AM

Except it's already been confirmed, large updates rather than expansion packs.

Well, I think the distinction here is probably whether you go to the store and buy the box or not. Runes of Magic as an example have large game updates which are basically just expansions. If they just sell it via their website, they can cut out the retailer and pull in all the revenue.

While not exactly a MMO fee, but Xbox Live requires you to pay an active sub in order to play online games. This does cover all the games instead of just say CoD or BF of course. With that I would not totally put it past people considering doing a monthly sub.

People who play consoles games online are a much different playerbase than the PC. There's some crossover, but not much. Plus Xbox Live is essentially a monopoly on that platform. You have to buy it if you want to play online on the Xbox.

Kouza

2011-07-11, 10:34 AM

Volw

2011-07-11, 10:43 AM

That's some hyperbole. Every P2P MMORPG in existence has expansion packs. You should be asking them how they can justify a monthly fee and charging you for expansions.

Also, if you can't see the distinction, I can't help you.

GW1 is not an MMO. Not even Anet claims so. GW2 is not out yet and the contents of the cash store in game are not yet confirmed (and mind - even Anet has been mentioning XP boosts - sounds a lot like any other F2P innit?).

Also, we're not talking about other MMO's we are talking about - according to you - unique business model of GW1.

So for the fourth or fifth time - what is the business model difference between having customers purchase weapons via cash store or having them buy a whole expansion pack for the same weapons.

Majority of customers don't buy expansion packs to play new missions - they buy it to get teh ph4t l3wt. While it's true content has to be finished when it comes to expansions, in most of the F2P games, the same expansion content would be available to everyone anyway.

artifice

2011-07-11, 10:45 AM

GW1 is not an MMO. Not even Anet claims so. GW2 is not out yet and the contents of the cash store in game are not yet confirmed (and mind - even Anet has been mentioning XP boosts - sounds a lot like any other F2P innit?).

Also, we're not talking about other MMO's we are talking about - according to you - unique business model of GW1.

So for the fourth or fifth time - what is the business model difference between having customers purchase weapons via cash store or having them buy a whole expansion pack for the same weapons.

Majority of customers don't buy expansion packs to play new missions - they buy it to get teh ph4t l3wt. While it's true content has to be finished when it comes to expansions, in most of the F2P games, the same expansion content would be available to everyone anyway.

Except this conversion is pointless with GW1 because GW1 doesn't have attributes. Items were basically nothing but vanity items.

Nobel

2011-07-11, 10:49 AM

Lets look at EVE's Model... which is essentially subscription based all around the philosophy.

"If you build a game well enough, they will come"

Lets hope this happens.

Volw

2011-07-11, 10:52 AM

Honestly, after playing World of Tanks, being my first F2P game, Id prefer a simple 15 dollar a month subscription. 15 Bucks is.... what 1/120th of my monthly hours at work? I find it incredibly annoying to have to pay:

double xp: (15 dollars... basically your monthly subscription... this is one month)

EXP for other vehicles (1 dollar for every 25 converted... You can only use experience on the vehicles you earn it on otherwise... Some vehicles cost 65,000 exp and more.)

Lowe (Pretty much eliminates the first half of the grind, if you don`t like to play low tier games, easy mode for the games it gets in)- 35 dollars (50 after next update)

Extra in game money......: IDK don't do it.

See the trend here? It will likely be some sort of item store, that seems to be the new popular thing but, its not the new thing because, it costs the customer less.... Its P2W...... Save money and lose.

Yep - it's quite funny because people who shell out £20-£30 on a tank (!) would not be willing to spend £10 a month on a standard MMO subscription.

I've read an interview with Global Agenda dev recently and since they went F2P, they've started making loads more money.

It's all down to perception really. Subscription is perceived as a tax, while 50% bonus XP is perceived as a direct benefit, so to speak.

Which sounds better:
£10 for a month of playing
or
£10 for 2x XP and money bonus?

Exactly ;-) Even though end of the day it's the same as levelling in WoT without premium account is a pain in the ass.

Volw

2011-07-11, 10:57 AM

Except this conversion is pointless with GW1 because GW1 doesn't have attributes. Items were basically nothing but vanity items.

Wrong.

Each expansion had extra skills/spells in it. If you wanted to do Guild vs Guild or team PvP, you were required to have them as those skills were usually pretty crucial. Other than that, two new classes per expansion, which again were useful to have and most importantly - learn if you wanted to do any proper PvP.

Also IIRC, so I might be wrong - PvE raid items used to be a little better than PvP gear.

artifice

2011-07-11, 10:58 AM

Which sounds better:
£10 for a month of playing
or
£10 for 2x XP and money bonus?

I would like to introduce you to the Everquest II Marketplace.

http://everquest2.com/shop/marketplace

How about a nice Flask of Adventuring III to increase your XP rate by 100%?

Wrong.

Each expansion had extra skills/spells in it. If you wanted to do Guild vs Guild or team PvP, you were required to have them as those skills were usually pretty crucial. Other than that, two new classes per expansion, which again were useful to have and most importantly - learn if you wanted to do any proper PvP.

Also IIRC, so I might be wrong - PvE raid items used to be a little better than PvP gear.

No different than any MMO. New spells, new skills, new classes.

Volw

2011-07-11, 11:10 AM

I would like to introduce you to the Everquest II Marketplace.

http://everquest2.com/shop/marketplace

How about a nice Flask of Adventuring III to increase your XP rate by 100%?

No different than any MMO. New spells, new skills, new classes.

I know about EQ2 (and SOE milking techniques).

So for the sixth time - what is the business model difference between having customers purchase weapons via cash store or having them buy a whole expansion pack for the same weapons.

Still didn't get an answer from you. Don't think I will.

artifice

2011-07-11, 11:12 AM

I know about EQ2 (and SOE milking techniques).

So for the sixth time - what is the business model difference between having customers purchase weapons via cash store or having them buy a whole expansion pack for the same weapons.

Still didn't get an answer from you. Don't think I will.

What is the difference between those and the business model of an MMO that charges you $15 a month and $40 per expansion?

moosepoop

2011-07-11, 11:24 AM

casual players are NOT gonna pay subscription to a shooter, and sony is trying to cater to casual shooters. its setup for failure.

artifice

2011-07-11, 11:25 AM

casual players are NOT gonna pay subscription to a shooter, and sony is trying to cater to casual shooters. its setup for failure.

No business model has been announced, so we don't know if it is 'setup for failure' as you say or not.

Volw

2011-07-11, 11:26 AM

What is the difference between those and the business model of an MMO that charges you $15 a month and $40 per expansion?

*sigh*

Are you trolling?

You have claimed GW1 business model is different than F2P which according to you is a bubble.

And I'm proving to you it's almost exactly the same model F2P games are based on, with cash store items packed into an expansion.

Now you're trying to de-rail it into comparing it to other MMOs. Here's a newsflash - GW1 is not an MMO.

And I still don't have my answer. I think I'll drop it right here - waste of time.

moosepoop

2011-07-11, 11:28 AM

team fortress 2 went free to play and is now the most played game on steam. the microtransactions in tf2 do not break the game, are just cosmetic, or for people too impatient to unlock the weapons.

valve admit their sucess is combination of free to play, frequent updates, being in close touch with the community. learn something if u wanna make money, smedley.

Lunarchild

2011-07-11, 11:28 AM

I think the best thing they can do is sell the game full-price, and then give 2 options:

1. Free to Play (still requires purchase of the game)
2. Subscription (5 - 15$)

The difference would be in limiting the certification tree to free to play players. They'll still be able to play, but they won't be able to get some of the really cool stuff. Also I would suggest leadership (outfit & empire level) be restricted to subscribed members.

moosepoop

2011-07-11, 11:34 AM

the subscription fee should be much lower than those of mmoRPGs. the actual content of planetside as an mmo is a lot less than mmorpgs.

i also want to mention global agenda just went free to play and their devs say it saved the game. the population tripled.

subscription will also remove any hope of cross console with the ps3.

i understand the company took a huge hit from the hacker attack and want to quickly regain losses, and is putting high hopes on planetside. but subscription is not the answer.

Goku

2011-07-11, 11:40 AM

People who play consoles games online are a much different playerbase than the PC. There's some crossover, but not much. Plus Xbox Live is essentially a monopoly on that platform. You have to buy it if you want to play online on the Xbox.

Agreed with that, but there are people who play PC and Xbox still.

artifice

2011-07-11, 11:43 AM

*sigh*

Are you trolling?

You have claimed GW1 business model is different than F2P which according to you is a bubble.

And I'm proving to you it's almost exactly the same model F2P games are based on, with cash store items packed into an expansion.

Now you're trying to de-rail it into comparing it to other MMOs. Here's a newsflash - GW1 is not an MMO.

And I still don't have my answer. I think I'll drop it right here - waste of time.

I could ask you the same thing. You are not very adept at picking up obvious answers apparently. It's dumbfounding I have have to explain the difference.

When you buy a sword in the cash shop, you are just buying an item. When you buy an expansion in either GW or any MMO, you are buying access to content. Meaning, if you want you can have a hundred of those swords if you want to spend the time getting them.

F2P cash shops nickle and dime you. In Runes of Magic as an example. To stat an item, you need to buy 6 purified fusion stones, each at 55 diamonds. That is about $15 worth. You then precede to either farm the loot to get the stats to add to the purified fusion stones which takes transmuter charges which takes even more diamonds. Let's not forget that if you do it this way, you need to do it over and over to get to more powerful dungeons. Also, it needs to be done for every item slot. You could just skip the farming stat phase and pay about 2 million gold per stat (about $10 per stat if you bought the gold with diamonds, you need six of them per piece of armor).

Then there is Tiering the weapons, which is too complicated and expensive to go into. Plussing all your items which involve using cash shop items that have a failure rate and if they fail reduce the plus (+16 is now the max). Adding rune slots and tiered runes. Buying wings to stat which can only be gotten in the item shop. Let's put it this way, you could spend $500 to fully stat your character... only to spend another $500 the following year to restat your character with the new expansion.

...

or you could pay $40 for an expansion pack.

Goku

2011-07-11, 11:44 AM

subscription will also remove any hope of cross console with the ps3.

DCUO requires a sub on PC/PS3 and I think they are playable with each other on the same server.

I do not think there will be a PS3/PC crossover for PS2 as there is just too much of a advantage to a KB/Mouse over a controller. You can setup a mouse/KB for the PS3, but it has to be developed specifically for that game. Really the only FPS that did that was UT3 and even then those players who did not have a controller played on servers with PC players.

moosepoop

2011-07-11, 11:50 AM

DCUO requires a sub on PC/PS3 and I think they are playable with each other on the same server.
thats true bro, but planetside is a shooter. they invoke different reactions from the player base.

too much of a advantage to a KB/Mouse over a controller.
actually i have high hopes for cross platform in planetside 2. mouse and keyboard give an advantage in high damage, low hp, fast paced twitch shooters. planetside is much slower paced and fast aiming is much less important.

with cross platform the population can be safely maintained at high levels for a long time.

Goku

2011-07-11, 11:58 AM

Well if that is proved to be the case then I will welcome console players. Anything to have a broader audience to keep this game going for years.

Malorn

2011-07-11, 12:47 PM

Something that I think may have been lost is the possibility that they can in fact have both free-to-play and a subscription service, with the subscription service basically serviing as a discount on some highly desirable convenience/services. And many people will get that.

I would break down the potential planetside population as follows

A) The set of players who will never, ever sub for a FPS game.
This includes quite a lot of current console players and classic FPS players such as team fortress 2, counter-strike, etc that have not and will not pay-to-play a FPS game. Perhaps their parents buy the game for them and aren't willing to put up a subscription fee. Perhaps they are against the principle of it, but they still want to play the game and will still put out the $60 to buy it.

B) The set of players that will not sub, but will occasionally purchase vanity items or services, like double training time or a recert/recustomization.
I think this is a rather large group. This is the population from A that finds micro-transactions appealing and non-committal. This is consistent with the way Xbox and other games work in the console world when you buy points and then spend them on game content, skins, themepacks, etc.

C) The set of players that will be on/off subscribers.
This is a fairly large group and probably represents the majority of MMO players and veteran planetsiders. Over the years we don't always have the game sub'd and may not feel it worthwhile to sub it. However, these players might still want to hop on and play the game for a few hours on a very casual basis in-between their re-subs.

D) The set of players that will be primary subscribers & make regular purchases.
These are your fat cats that dont' care how they spend money and dont' mind dropping a few hundred bucks a year for a game they play a lot. They'll probably go to fanfares too and take other expenses the typical gamer won't. For every one of these you can equal half a dozen or more subscribers in terms of revenue. They may move on to other games or they may also be on-off subscribers.

E) The set of trial players that are just feeling the game out before moving into one of the other categories.
Free 7-day trials, that sort of thing. They get let into the game, play around for a bit, then have to upgrade to the full deal. After that they become one of the other 4 categories of players.

The main point I was trying to make with the original post was that I believe a model can exist where all of these populations are included and PS2 makes steady revenue.

The on-off subscribers, the fat cats, and the casual transaction purchasers will supplement and more than make up for the loss of regular income from group A. However, group A is important because it brings in more players, and those players have friends who will sometimes be in the 2nd and 3rd category. Planetside is a game where it isn't very fun if there aren't people, and Group A while not bringing in steady income will bring in more players that can/will, and they will keep the game fun.

The on-off subscribers can also benefit from the free-to-play option when they unsub. They can come back try out the game from time to time and then get motivated to play again and possibly resub or make a microtransaction purchase. By having the F2P option you also keep the door open for those players to really come back at any time or simply never truly leave.

The key is having an adequate motivator for subscribing or having a few services/convenience items worth purchasing on a somewhat regular basis. Training time/xp modifier is a safe one and that's why I suggested it. People will pay for convenience. I'm mostly a 9-5'er these days and I'll happily pay extra money to make the smaller amount of playtime that I have 'count more' and ease the BR/cert grind. And whether I do or not really doesn't affect anyone else and is a revenue opportunity for SOE.

PS2 is a bit unique in that "MMO" and "FPS" have some very different player expectations. Those coming from the MMO side of things are OK with subscriptions and expect it. Those coming from the FPS side don't and prefer microtransactions simply because they are non-committal. Both can be satisfied.

moosepoop

2011-07-11, 12:56 PM

i still find the idea of subscribing to a fps quite bizzare. personally im an on/ff subscriber because while i like the game, i cant justify long term subscription to planetside.

no story, no social community, no real objective, just larger than normal maps. while massive multiplayer is fun, it gets boring and theres a limit to how much i will pay money for it.

2coolforu

2011-07-11, 01:07 PM

Goku

2011-07-11, 01:14 PM

Clearly you shouldn't be here then, if you don't enjoy the game why are you here? Also did you ever play it before the game was killed off, when it actually had a decent subscriber base?

This is equivalent to me going on C&C 95 and saying it sucks and bores me because there's noone else online.

Everyone is different. If we get a mix of everything here it should easily out do any revenue SOE got from the original PS even back at its peak sub base.

I have mentioned PS to many people and they get turned off from the monthly sub. Imagine just getting all those extra players willing to buy PS2 for $50 even with limited chars will give SOE more money. Not to mention way to more pop.

Skorne

2011-07-11, 01:25 PM

I prefer a sub fee as it tends to keep most the 'trash' out, (hackers and the like) not completely but it helps. I personally would pay up to £10 a month for PS2 if it lives up to what they are saying, it sounds amazing. That said I also completely understand why people don't want to commit or can't afford to pay a sub.

But I'm really not a fan of F2P model games, since they usually end up being pay to win in some way. It would be acceptable if they were purely cosmetic items I guess - that way it's just taxing the guys who'll pay to look cool so the rest of the populace can play for free, but I strongly disagree with paying real money for advantages in any game.

Worst are the games with enforced subs and expensive cash shop ala WoW, that kind of pure greed disgusts me (as if they don't make enough money already!) and I refuse to pay for any in game items - and would not even play if all my friends didn't play it. :(

Gandhi

2011-07-11, 01:27 PM

An often overlooked consequence of cosmetic items is the additional strain it places on the graphics engine. If what Higby said is true then they're already stretched pretty thin on available texture resources, I don't imagine there's much room for deluxe armor and the like.

Goku

2011-07-11, 01:29 PM

2coolforu

2011-07-11, 01:32 PM

Everyone is different. If we get a mix of everything here it should easily out do any revenue SOE got from the original PS even back at its peak sub base.

I have mentioned PS to many people and they get turned off from the monthly sub. Imagine just getting all those extra players willing to buy PS2 for $50 even with limited chars will give SOE more money. Not to mention way to more pop.

Which is exactly why I said to put in the reserves system on launch, problem solved. We get monthly sub which means good servers and regular updates without Pay 2 Win items, then people who don't want to pay can have a limited experience for free.

moosepoop

2011-07-11, 01:36 PM

Clearly you shouldn't be here then, if you don't enjoy the game why are you here?

i enjoy the game and i am gonna be here as long as i like. i just dont like the subscription fee for a shooter. its bizzare.

Which is exactly why I said to put in the reserves system on launch, problem solved.

nope. reserves means you can play free indefinitely forever. that doesnt make money. microtransaction is the way.

Sirisian

2011-07-11, 01:37 PM

When making threads like this please made a poll... It's all fun and games watching this topic get rehashed 100 times with the same arguments, but it's nice to see a definitive poll where people stand.

subscription will also remove any hope of cross console with the ps3.

Good point. I'm for subscription. Mostly because 15 dollars is nothing to me as an adult now. (oh how the times have changed in these 8 years). :lol:

Gandhi

2011-07-11, 01:38 PM

Easy enough to add just objects later on. Gotta spend money to make money after all.
I was thinking more the rendering itself. If I understood Higby right when he was talking about vehicle hacking he hinted that the engine is already being pushed to the limits in terms of the sheer amount of textures it needs to render in a battle. You can only pump so much to the graphics card before you need to start swapping textures with system RAM again, and if that happens constantly your frame rate takes a nose dive.

In a game where you can potentially have hundreds of characters on screen, with potentially hundreds of flashy cosmetic items, this could turn into a real problem.

moosepoop

2011-07-11, 01:39 PM

a set of uniform cosmetic items for outfits is fine.

Goku

2011-07-11, 01:49 PM

I was thinking more the rendering itself. If I understood Higby right when he was talking about vehicle hacking he hinted that the engine is already being pushed to the limits in terms of the sheer amount of textures it needs to render in a battle. You can only pump so much to the graphics card before you need to start swapping textures with system RAM again, and if that happens constantly your frame rate takes a nose dive.

In a game where you can potentially have hundreds of characters on screen, with potentially hundreds of flashy cosmetic items, this could turn into a real problem.

All this will have to be explored. Though I already heard Matt say he wants outfits to be more identifiable between each other and he hinted at armor/vehicle cosmetic difference.

I will admit I don't know that much about programming. If I have to guess I would assume changing a few colored areas on a armor from say Yellow to black, isn't going to make everyone have 10 FPS. I am not talking making backpacks, different shin/arm pads, or even helmets either. That will I know make the FPS go bonkers due possibly more complex designs.

Gandhi

2011-07-11, 01:54 PM

All this will have to be explored. Though I already heard Matt say he wants outfits to be more identifiable between each other and he hinted at armor/vehicle cosmetic difference.

I will admit I don't know that much about programming. If I have to guess I would assume changing a few colored areas on a armor from say Yellow to black, isn't going to make everyone have 10 FPS. I am not talking making backpacks, different shin/arm pads, or even helmets either. That will I know make the FPS go bonkers due possibly more complex designs.
Yeah recoloring textures is a pretty cheap operation, and depending on texture sizes you could even pack the cosmetic versions into the same file to avoid having to load them separately.

I do graphics programming for a living (albeit with OpenGL), so when I see things like this the first thing I think is "I wonder how they're rendering this" :p

Dreamcast

2011-07-11, 02:04 PM

I agree.....but I wonder if you f2p enough to support the servers?....I mean if people buy the game which will be around $50 at most, will that enough for the servers and updates to be maintained?

First of I like the subscription model but I understand that alot of people these days don't believe in paying subscription so I understand that F2P might be the way to go

I do like your idea which is similar to LoL....atleast the paying aspect...Sure you can pay and level faster but once you cap, you cap and are equal to other players which I like.

So I do like the fact that nobody is going to be OP because they have more money...also people do like buying skins and things like that.

Also that might be good for casual players who don't have lots of time on there hand, which seems like soe cares about alot since they put offline skill progress.

The only thing I didnt really like is

* Complete character re-spec....I guess because Im used for it to be free but this will be a big cash cow for Planetside since people wont want to create new characters.

Another thing I will be worried about using this sytem, is the future.

SOE already said that resources are important.....I would really hate it if they got greedy and charged on something that could make you actually superior.

2coolforu

2011-07-11, 02:07 PM

i enjoy the game and i am gonna be here as long as i like. i just dont like the subscription fee for a shooter. its bizzare.

nope. reserves means you can play free indefinitely forever. that doesnt make money. microtransaction is the way.

No microtransaction shooter has ever worked, have you played Battlefied Free 2 play or Battlefield Heroes, or maybe even World of Tanks. They suck since they went Micro.

2coolforu

2011-07-11, 02:09 PM

i enjoy the game and i am gonna be here as long as i like. i just dont like the subscription fee for a shooter. its bizzare.

nope. reserves means you can play free indefinitely forever. that doesnt make money. microtransaction is the way.

Reserves don't make money? Yes they do, reserves brought thousands of new players, you merely limit the Battlerank or the amount of skills you can get on a reserve character then people sub after they've played the game for a few months and actually want to advance.

Reserves really upped Planetsides population during one of the most dire times, and sub for an MMO isn't bizarre, its the status quo if you want to have a server than can handle 100,000 unique users all shooting stuff up. That kind of game requires the computing power of a university grade supercomputer.

moosepoop

2011-07-11, 02:17 PM

No microtransaction shooter has ever worked, have you played Battlefied Free 2 play or Battlefield Heroes, or maybe even World of Tanks. They suck since they went Micro.

lol. team fortress 2 is microtransaction, its perfectly balanced and its the most played game on steam. get with the program.

2coolforu

2011-07-11, 02:22 PM

No, Team Fortress 2 is nothing like Planetside. Firstly the dedi's are player run. Secondly it has a 'Free 2 play' aspect very similar to the idea of 'reserves'. Thirdly a large amount of the community hates the microtransactions for being insipid and fourthly it was ran for a large amount of time without any hats. Fifthly the items can be obtained ingame with enough time spent, the money is also not used to fund the game its merely money for valve - we are referring to a payment method used to fund the servers.

Also its not an MMO, so we've no idea whether it would fund servers anyway.

moosepoop

2011-07-11, 02:23 PM

2coolforu

2011-07-11, 02:30 PM

MAG doesnt need subscription. global agenda is free to play. also mmofps.

in fact their devs say f2p saved the game.

son, if you irrationally want to give a video game company loads of extra money for no good reason, they will take it. but i would like people to pay reasonable amount of money, still support the company, and not get milked.

And guess what? The MAG servers suck ass and drop you all the time, Global Agenda is basically failing and is instanced small scale combat not 1000 player battles, none of those games has had any success nor do they come close to Planetside in scale and numbers.

Also I love your logic, paying a fixed subscription to get updates and support the game is being milked but having to buy items at exorbitant prices just to stay competitive isn't? Micro transactions for items is basically extorting you into paying cash and half the time they end up being more expensive than regular subs.

Raymac

2011-07-11, 02:39 PM

global agenda is free to play. also mmofps.

This statement is blasphemy.

2coolforu

2011-07-11, 02:41 PM

This statement is blasphemy.

Lol yeah, instanced 16 player is massively multiplayer :rolleyes:

Zulthus

2011-07-11, 04:32 PM

I personally hope this game won't be F2P, if it's good, I want to spend my $15 a month for continued content updates, hacker removal, etc. I'm not sure how to describe it, but to me, the game wouldn't feel... normal to play without a sub... I don't know. I'm talking out of my ass.

NCLynx

2011-07-11, 05:32 PM

lol. team fortress 2 is microtransaction, its perfectly balanced and its the most played game on steam. get with the program.

Team HATress 2 is a damn joke. It's not even about shooting people anymore it's about hats.

basti

2011-07-11, 05:37 PM

Death2All

2011-07-11, 05:51 PM

Pay to play is the way to go for a MMO. Free to play with micro transactions does only work if you balance the shop really, really well. And most F2P games fail at that.

I guess for planetside 2 they will go with Pay 2 play AND micro transactions. But as Sony already stated, they will do micro transactions only for cosmetic items, nothing that would improve your character at all. Just like CCP started to do recently.

I agree wholeheartedly. I would hate to see PS follow GA's example with a one time pay fee and then you have a premium character with the addition of a cash shop. Most people are foreign to the idea of paying a subscription for an MMO but I believe it's good for a few reasons.

A subscription fee generates a constant revenue stream for SOE for new content etc. Okay, maybe that wasn't the case with PS 1 obviously, but this team seems to be a lot more focused and passionate about the game this time around than they were before.

One time fees force the company to either have a hell of a large player base and also to be dependent on a cash shop for future monies. This often leads to the addition of imba weapons/armor. While they stated that they would never add a weapon to the cash shop that would give an advantage over a player, depending on a cash shop isn't the way to go in my opinion of gathering money from a game.

Another reason is that it's preventive of hackers/griefers to some degree. Having to pay a subscription for the game would deter most hackers I'd imagine assuming of course they would get banned. Who would continue to pay money to a company that you're trying to obviously destroy. Well, there are some pretty stupid people out there so who knows.

Thirdly, and finally it kind of gives an impression over the game. I'm often swayed away from F2P games because it gives me the impression it's a cheap game with added features in the cash shop to get people to pay money for their shitty game. A subscription based game is usually getting new content and has an active development team. Where I'm getting these impressions are unknown because PS has been primarily, the only subscription based game I've played much of excluding a few others here and there.

While the last one was more opinionated than the others I still feel that most people view it the same way.

It may sound strange to WANT to give away gobs of money to company, but in many ways you get a lot more out of a game and it can be A LOT more enjoyable in most cases.

Lunarchild

2011-07-11, 06:08 PM

<snip>
The key is having an adequate motivator for subscribing or having a few services/convenience items worth purchasing on a somewhat regular basis. Training time/xp modifier is a safe one and that's why I suggested it. People will pay for convenience. I'm mostly a 9-5'er these days and I'll happily pay extra money to make the smaller amount of playtime that I have 'count more' and ease the BR/cert grind. And whether I do or not really doesn't affect anyone else and is a revenue opportunity for SOE.
<snip>

I agree, yet think that the training time / XP modifier is not adequate enough: When people have the things they want they'll just unsubscribe. That's why I suggested making some parts of the tree subscriber only. Especially the leadership branch is a good target for this, as this will double as a filter: Subscribed members are more invested in the product that free to play members.

There are a lot more things that SOE can do with this though: special events and looks for subscribers; shorter spawn timers; shorter vehicle timers... Though the last two might impact game balance, so longer than normal timers for free players might be a better way to put it.

I also think paying for the package is a must for non-trial players! (And the trial should be time-limited to something short, and limited to what you can get/do)

Hamma

2011-07-11, 07:50 PM

Malorn nails it again, well said.

RavenUSC3

2011-07-11, 10:45 PM

The problem with the first Planetside, and what scares me about this one, is the promises of things to come. Whether it was in beta, right at release, or after release, there were these promises of things they were going to do, and continual updates, etc.... Updates took way too long, and once we got them, they weren't even what was promised.

If you're going to charge me for cable TV and you don't keep adding channels to keep up with competitors like DirecTV, I'm going to drop cable. The same goes for a subscription video game. There is an opt-out option. To keep people in the game, you have to keep updating it. I've already seen the same stuff I heard before. "We're going to implement this, maybe not at release, but some time after..." I don't want to hear that, just do it. In fact, don't even mention stuff you might put in the game later as it'll just dissappoint people later.

WoW apparently gets the subscription thing right. I've heard its from continual updates. I haven't played WoW or any Blizzard game, but however many millions of people can't be wrong. I just don't get into that stuff. FPS I can do, and have been wanting another MMOFPS for....eight years now.

I really just hope they get it right this time. It seems like they're combining features from popular FPS out there. Hopefully they'll take aspects of the business model from popular subscription games out there.

Bags

2011-07-11, 10:46 PM

Yup. Blizzard actually gives you value for your $15/mo.

Hamma

2011-07-11, 10:52 PM

Blizzard has had problem keeping players recently, the sub for the new expansion then quit till the next one. I believe they are considering changing up their model a bit to combat this.

SKYeXile

2011-07-11, 11:02 PM

Blizzard has had problem keeping players recently, the sub for the new expansion then quit till the next one. I believe they are considering changing up their model a bit to combat this.

They probably need to dripfeed people more quests and zones to do. if thats all their intrests are.

Rbstr

2011-07-11, 11:06 PM

Part of what I understood SOE is, with PS2, moving to a more CCP-esque model of MMO development:
Have the subscription pay for the periodic content additions besides access to the game. Make improvements to the game, add massive new game play elements, redo the graphics from scratch (and then decide the ships still don't look cool enough and start slowly revamping them), completely change how missiles work, have a team of people that does nothing but optimize servers and so on.
They took the longterm stance, where many take the short term stance.

It has worked amazingly for EVE, which is one of the very few MMOs that has grown significantly beyond the initial spikes. To my knowledge no other MMO has gone though 6+ years of growth.

I completely support the idea of "Hey, we're going to start here with a complete game that has a strong foundation. Then we've got these crazy ideas that we're hoping to implement down the road."
It's very different from producing an incomplete game and fixing it up later.

Bags

2011-07-11, 11:09 PM

Blizzard has had problem keeping players recently, the sub for the new expansion then quit till the next one. I believe they are considering changing up their model a bit to combat this.

That's because people are stupid. Blizzard gives enough content and support to justify $15/mo. I quit because it was too hard to find smart enough people to PvE with.

artifice

2011-07-12, 03:39 AM

Sirisian

2011-07-12, 07:44 AM

Let's put it this way, they are going to have to have a business model to encourage people (including old veterans like myself) to play it. There are too many competitors coming out and some of them are F2P.
Could you name any of these "competitors"? I've researched and never saw any real competitors in the future.

SKYeXile

2011-07-12, 07:52 AM

off the top of my head:

firefall, warhammer 40k DMO, COD3, BF3, tribes ascend, tribes universe.

Gandhi

2011-07-12, 08:03 AM

off the top of my head:

firefall, warhammer 40k DMO, COD3, BF3, tribes ascend, tribes universe.
I don't think any of those are direct competitors, for the most part they're regular shooters with gameplay as different as TF2 compared with PS1.

TU comes close, but from what I've seen it won't be anywhere near the same scale and lacks vehicular combat. The rest are (I think) normal instanced shooters with game modes like deathmatch and capture the flag, nothing like Planetside.

Heaven

2011-07-12, 08:04 AM

How much is ps to play now still £8.99? maybe have a pay to play but cheaper as that could attract a lot more people, i dont mind paying the 8.99 or whatever is is but if they made it say £4.99 a month that would be great! :)

SKYeXile

2011-07-12, 08:14 AM

Sirisian

2011-07-12, 08:21 AM

off the top of my head:

firefall, warhammer 40k DMO, COD3, BF3, tribes ascend, tribes universe.
Firefall is just a simple singleplayer/co-op game. I believe it's similar to Guild Wars 1 in that there is a story. From what I researched when it came out it looks like two weeks of gameplay.

Warhammer 40k DMO is a generic MMORPG. :confused:

COD3 and BF3 are a few hours of gameplay each. (I'm imagining 10-15 hours each?) I mean I could see how they might pull players away for week, but I'm under the impression BF3's release is months before we see a PS2 release.

Tribes Ascend/Tribes Universe confuses me to no end. It's two games being developed by the same company. Don't get me wrong I'm sure Tribes Universe will do well, but it's a fast paced shooter more akin to unreal tournament fans. It lacks any cooperative gameplay due to the fast movement. (You can see this yourself by watching the trailers where players are covering the whole map is seconds). I'll probably wait to play it first though before saying it won't work as an MMO.

But yeah like I said PS2 has no real competitors. I'm not sure about you guys but I don't tend to play BF's multiplayer much. I'll pick up a new game and play the single player and get in a few matches, but then I tend to get bored. The only game recently that kept my interest at all is Crysis 2's multiplayer which felt very much like playing Planetside. Tons of strategy and you can take a lot of bullets with armor mode on. (And you can cloak and other fun stuff).

anygame people would play over PS is competitor, perhaps not direct, but in 8 years planetside has had no direct competitor, that probably wont change anytime soon.
If you can still have a subscription to Planetside and take a few hours off to play another game I don't view it as a competitor. When I was playing Planetside with friends I'd take breaks and play other games, but I still had my subscription going.

Gandhi

2011-07-12, 08:23 AM

anygame people would play over PS is competitor, perhaps not direct, but in 8 years planetside has had no direct competitor, that probably wont change anytime soon.
In that case every game out there is a competitor to PS. Which is true, but if you're gonna be that general there's really no sense in talking about it at all.

BlazingSun

2011-07-12, 08:39 AM

I personally hope this game won't be F2P, if it's good, I want to spend my $15 a month for continued content updates, hacker removal, etc.

That's the thing though. There was never enough development and support for the old game to actually justify subscription costs that high (OK let's be generous .. let's say after the first year).

While I don't know how a F2P variant could work, I personally won't throw my money at SOE again via a subscription just to be able to play the game that I have bought.

In the first 3 years of Planetside I have played a lot, but now that I am more of a casual player and don't have as much time anymore and feel I would be wasting money on subscriptions.

My point is, should there be a subscription again, it better be worth the money this time around.

artifice

2011-07-12, 09:13 AM

I don't think any of those are direct competitors, for the most part they're regular shooters with gameplay as different as TF2 compared with PS1.

TU comes close, but from what I've seen it won't be anywhere near the same scale and lacks vehicular combat. The rest are (I think) normal instanced shooters with game modes like deathmatch and capture the flag, nothing like Planetside.

Tribes has had vehicles since Tribes 2. Tribes Universe is no different in that respect.

Tribes Ascend/Tribes Universe confuses me to no end. It's two games being developed by the same company. Don't get me wrong I'm sure Tribes Universe will do well, but it's a fast paced shooter more akin to unreal tournament fans. It lacks any cooperative gameplay due to the fast movement. (You can see this yourself by watching the trailers where players are covering the whole map is seconds). I'll probably wait to play it first though before saying it won't work as an MMO.

Tribes Universe is a MMOFPS with a persistent world based around fighting for territorial control. I am confused why you don't think it is a competitor.

Gandhi

2011-07-12, 10:23 AM

Tribes has had vehicles since Tribes 2. Tribes Universe is no different in that respect.
But they're going to play support roles rather than deal damage, at least I'm pretty sure that's what I read in a Q&A a while back. Hence, no vehicular combat.

Sirisian

2011-07-12, 10:40 AM

Tribes Universe is a MMOFPS with a persistent world based around fighting for territorial control. I am confused why you don't think it is a competitor.
oh whoops. That trailer I watched was for Tribes Ascend. hmm. Reading up on TU it looks like you fight in instanced matches of over 100 people to take over territory on a persistent map. Or that's the impression I get reading the interview write-ups. Too early to say though since they're being really vague in their answers. :confused: It doesn't sound the same as Planetside's large battles.

Warruz

2011-07-12, 10:52 AM

i refuse to play f2p games due to it feeling like youl never be as good as the person who pays.

PS needs to be a subscription

and it wont go GW style because they even said they wont be doing expansions just content updates.

What people need to realize with the subscription model is those who sub the latest actually get the most bang for their buck. As more content has been made to play then before, also by going the subscription model you dont get the nickle and dime feel associated with traditional FPS games with their $15 DLC for 3 maps or the $20 mount.

Planetside was a great but is big cult hit, it is by no means a COD in terms of sales and interest. So it needs to make it appealing to get started in. What if the game itself was free but $15 subscription, this allows more people to get into it cheaply and as long as they keep them would make more profit.

artifice

2011-07-12, 10:55 AM

oh whoops. That trailer I watched was for Tribes Ascend. hmm. Reading up on TU it looks like you fight in instanced matches of over 100 people to take over territory on a persistent map. Or that's the impression I get reading the interview write-ups. Too early to say though since they're being really vague in their answers. :confused: It doesn't sound the same as Planetside's large battles.

In TU there is one large persistent world and the game will also include structured PVP such as CTF and team DM. They had specifically said that it was a successor to PlanetSide in one of their interviews.

Uberculosis

2011-07-12, 07:33 PM

Let's have plain old monthly sub, microtransactions have never worked and F2P can't support the wide scale and constant updates we want

As a person with 1700 hours logged into TF2 since its release in 2007, I can safely say that

1) Microtransactions for cosmetic/convenience items are a monstrous, unstoppable cash cow, and
2) F2P = Hordes and hordes of people. I'm an admin for a smaller server, which has been at capacity since the TF2 F2P update came out. Between 4p and 1a EST, not a free slot exists.

I'm all for the half-exp F2P model. If we want thousands and thousands of players duking it out over land, we have to remove as many barriers to entry as possible. PS2 needs bodies to make it work, and the body of a 35 year old guy with a career and a monthly sub is just as good as the body of a 16 year old with no money.

This works in conjunction with the proposed expansions they mentioned later. In addition to the clusterfuck of ill-conceived content from CC, it added new areas to fight in, which reduced the population density overall. Adding new areas(as mentioned in the Q&A's) means supplementing the existing population with more bodies to fill the new spaces. More bodies requires advertising, and low barriers to entry. Again, F2P fulfills this role.

It seems to me, that the hybrid F2P/Subscription system is the most ideal. Subscription for those without time, but money, F2P for those with time, but no money.

2coolforu

2011-07-12, 07:42 PM

As a person with 1700 hours logged into TF2 since its release in 2007, I can safely say that

1) Microtransactions for cosmetic/convenience items are a monstrous, unstoppable cash cow, and
2) F2P = Hordes and hordes of people. I'm an admin for a smaller server, which has been at capacity since the TF2 F2P update came out. Between 4p and 1a EST, not a free slot exists.

I'm all for the half-exp F2P model. If we want thousands and thousands of players duking it out over land, we have to remove as many barriers to entry as possible. PS2 needs bodies to make it work, and the body of a 35 year old guy with a career and a monthly sub is just as good as the body of a 16 year old with no money.

This works in conjunction with the proposed expansions they mentioned later. In addition to the clusterfuck of ill-conceived content from CC, it added new areas to fight in, which reduced the population density overall. Adding new areas(as mentioned in the Q&A's) means supplementing the existing population with more bodies to fill the new spaces. More bodies requires advertising, and low barriers to entry. Again, F2P fulfills this role.

It seems to me, that the hybrid F2P/Subscription system is the most ideal. Subscription for those without time, but money, F2P for those with time, but no money.

Which is exactly why I said the best option was monthly subscription with a reserves style system to draw in subs, It is hard to read through all the posts but sometimes it can be important :P.

SKYeXile

2011-07-13, 08:11 AM

Just had a pro idea, sell CSHD or Severside hit prediction netcode in the store for players, ill pay.

PS: I'M SERIOUS.

Rarntogo

2011-07-13, 08:29 AM

To me personally whether I have to pay $15/mo. to play or play for free has little or no effect on my decision to play or not. You guys have made some interesting points on how it effects population but in reality I think it all comes down to the quality of the game. If I want to play it, the cost means little to me. Lets just say the biggest cash cow game ever is WoW. Its $15/mo. (?) and has how many players?? and has been going strong for 5,6,7 years? I personally dont see the attraction, tried it and didnt like it but it seems I am the minority. Global Agenda is F2P. I played in the Beta hoping it would be the next PS. Sadly it falls way short, but back to my point... It's F2P and I never play it. I wouldnt play WoW if it was F2P. Maybe my opinion is skewed because I'm at a place in my life where $15/mo doesnt mean much but judging by WoW, if kids want to play it they will find a way.