Making this work [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

NlightN

2011-08-08, 10:55 AM

Hey all, been lurking around here for a little while now and been keeping up with PS since well before release. I'm really hyped about this upcoming sequel much like the rest of you, or 'remake' as they're calling it.....but anyhow......

Let's say we're all working in the sales department for PS2. What do you guys think would be the best model for sustaining a playerbase high enough to maintain these thousand player battles the devs are aiming for and that we're all dreaming about. Being within reason and not just how you might want it personally, what do you think is one that would appeal to a high contingency of ppl, and at the same time provide the devs with the finances they need to maintain a quality grade, ever evolving, and cheat-free game.

I personally think the perfect financial model for PS2 would be the standard - buy the boxed copy (or digital download equivalent), then charge a very very reasonable sub fee, like $4.99 month (initiated after the first 30 days) which covers all expansions, together with a micro trans store for non gameplay affecting purchases only (armor decorations, outfit logos for vehicles, etc.)

My reason......with all the popular non-sub FPSs out there, and ones that will have come out by release time of PS2, the game needs to have a very reasonable subscription fee (which I think is necessary for a game of this magnitude and ambition) to keep players from drifting away to those other games and cutting off their subs. Then adding micros into the equation, it should make this model very feasible by allowing them to make up the difference to that of a standard AAA sub premium.

The business model for PS2 is most definitely going to be a major determing factor to the success of this game, and so what are other peoples ideas for a good model or what do you think about this one?

FIREk

2011-08-08, 11:06 AM

Aractain

2011-08-08, 11:16 AM

Box cost, free-to-play with support for micros.
pay for content packs (new vehicles, guns etc new maps are awalys free to keep people playing together - not more powerful items though, never that!).

That box cost is a big recoup on buget but a sub of any kind is just dumb when it comes to energetic intesive shooters. People just can't put as much time into them as they can a more lesuierly game like WoW. Thus people have this state of mind they are wasting money if they only play on weekends etc - EVEN IF they would spend more money overall with free to play.

Guild Wars 2 is doing this perfectly - although we don't know what kind of other things they will sell yet.

Micro + Subs is the worst option. It feels like your being nickle and dimed as well as obligated to play as much as possible.

NlightN

2011-08-08, 11:24 AM

Free to play,
Premium account (monthly payment of $10-$15) giving 100% faster skill training, 50% more Battle Rank XP and maybe a discount on vanity items,
Microtransaction store with pretty or practical stuff that doesn't give a significant advantage (so anything from customization items to weapon scopes/silencers, normally unavailabla in the game).

I'm pretty sure this will be good enough, depending on how much customization will be realistically possible in PS2. At least it won't scare away the FPS gamers (not used to paying subscriptions).

Do you really think a primarily free-to-play model would be able to suffice a game like PS2, sure it can work for a game like LoLs, but an MMO like PS2, in which they've stated they will have a dedicated hack watching team? I don't know if that model's been tested enough to want to test it on the success of PS2 personally. And with a premium sub like you're talking about next to it (which I bet only a small percentage of players would go for) ppl might just sub it for a few months to rush skills up, and then cut it off after reaching a comfortable level in a couple classes.

basti

2011-08-08, 12:04 PM

Once and for all: Box price as usual, common Sub per month, Micro transactiosn for cosmetic items.

Free 2 play or whatever = no game for me. Once you actually played enough F2P games, you know why.

Malorn

2011-08-08, 12:09 PM

DDO is a great example of Free-to-play working.

That said, if PS2 is going to be on any consoles or on shelves then the game itself will sell for $60 bucks like any other mainstream console / PC game. This is good though...
a) It brings immediate revenue to SOE for the purchase
b) It deters hackers/griefers from permeating the game (which they would if it were 100% free, but when they need to pay $ for the account it raises the bar).
c) It is consistent with every other major shooter game released - pay once, play forever.

So on top of that build in the DDO lessons, which I believe is one of those most successful F2P models there is. DDO went from a dying game to having more paying subs than it had before it went F2P. It has more revenue now than when it was pure sub-based, so from a business perspective they're a very good model to take a look at. They can take conceptual model from DDO though the implementation will have to be drastically different since PS2 isn't a RPG with PvE content and all that typical stuff. Some things won't transition well (like content access), and others will manifest differently (like bank space).

- DDO does not sell power in their store. This is incredibly important, and Smed has also gone out of his way to confirm the same.

You have the "Premium account" - if you ever buy anything from the store at all, no matter what it is, you are forever a "premium" account. This is a good recognition, because once you buy one thing from a store, chances are very high you'll buy something else later. So they recognize that as a paying customer.

Premium accounts could get some small 'teaser' versions of some of the VIP perks, such as a small bonus to cert training speed, small bonus to xp gain, and small increase in maximum resource capacity (non-stacking with VIP of course).

Then you have a "VIP" - this is a subscription account and you get more perks and bigger bonuses on perks over the premium accounts. The VIP account has some notable perks, including more bank space, more content availability, etc. At the end of every month you get some credits toward the in-game store for purchasing vanity items and what not.

For PS2, VIP access could do a number of things that won't affect power of the game.
- Faster cert training speed...the obvious choice
- Faster xp gaining speed
- If there's a server queue they could go to the front of it
- Increased maximum resource pool (this is the rough equivalent to more bank space - it means nothing if your rate of resource gain and consumption is the same, but allows you to stockpile more if you wish).
- credits awarded at the end of the month to buy vanity items or what not.

PS2 could easily blend the typical FPS model with DDO's free-to-play model. Have the game in stores like any other game charging the usual amount, and then it goes into Free-to-play mode.

And if you are content with that great. If you dont' mind paying more money for the game and want some additional convenience perks you can do so.

DDO also had the ability to buy some of the VIP perks up to a certain extent a la carte. They seemed to make a small mistake here because those who did the math realized that after about a year if you had spent the same amount of money but had bought the bonuses a la carte over going VIP you would have evened out without paying the VIP sub price past 1 year. They addressed this by making some of the VIP bonus stack over purchased amount. Meaning even a VIP could purchase more bank slots over what a VIP normally got. It could work the same here to allow people to buy-in to some of the bonuses they really want but still have the VIP have the best possible.

I think that model could work well. My only concern with 100% free-to-play is the hacking/griefing potential of someone going out and fetching a new account and then going wild. To a lesser extent you could have empire hoppers/spies more easily if there's no cost per-account. Paying money per-account is a strong deterrent to those things as many players won't do it, though some still will and you can't stop that. Of course the cost on the account will cost some customers. One solution would be to not make the game 100% free but make it significantly cheaper than other games (like $19-29 or something in that range instead of the usual $59).

BorisBlade

2011-08-08, 12:18 PM

Once and for all: Box price as usual, common Sub per month, Micro transactiosn for cosmetic items.

Free 2 play or whatever = no game for me. Once you actually played enough F2P games, you know why.

Agreed, everytime i see free to play, I get turned off and lose interest.

The free to play crap is total bs, cause its not really free. You get nickel and dimed to death, and its usually pay to win.

I'll take a dual model. Let em get the basic stuff for free, slow xp/training up or whatever, let em buy the micro vanity junk. But also give us a premium sub model. Let me have full speed xp/levelin and most things free, with some free cash per month to spend on the micro store for the non free items. However, honestly, if im payin full price for the game + monthly sub, you should just give me most everything for free. At 15 bux you are gettin as much money from a full price game every 3 months since retailers arent takin their cut from the game. Seems like a good deal. Dont try to make me pay subs/full game and then still expect more micro's.

I wont play completely f2p micro trans multiplayer games, seen quite a few games that looked great and i was goin to buy until i saw the micro crap, never gave em a second look after that.

CutterJohn

2011-08-08, 12:32 PM

Support for some method of being able to jump in and play the game, whether thats free to play or purchasable 'minutes' like a cell phone contract that carry over month to month. There comes a point in every mmo where you want to play a bit, but not $15 worth. Then you cancel, and rather than play a bit, you don't play at all.

Jennyboo

2011-08-08, 12:35 PM

Malorn

2011-08-08, 12:50 PM

Agreed, everytime i see free to play, I get turned off and lose interest.

The free to play crap is total bs, cause its not really free. You get nickel and dimed to death, and its usually pay to win.

That's the fear most of us have, but that fear is only real if you can trade money for in-game power. There are many ways to make free to play work without selling power. If power isnt' being sold then what is being sold is vanity and convenience (time-savers).

F2P in general is very good because it brings in a lot more players and if the paying/subscription model offers enough value some of those will switch over and pay. We the players get a larger player base and thus a thriving game while SOE gets more money in the long run due to the thriving game. DDO is a great example of this.

Smed has clearly stated that they will not sell power. Taking him at his word, the F2P model could work very well.

Remember Fodderside? When they did that program allowing players to play up to like BR 6 or something like that for free and try out the game? It brought in a huge influx of players and revitalized Planetside. Those were all people who were hesitant on paying for a game but were willing to try it out. If we had that refined, got the hacking concerns sorted, and allowed players to go much higher than BR6 (but it might take them longer than a paying customer), then we'd likely retain such players and keep the game thriving.

Most FPS games out on the market are also buy-once, play forever, so PS is in an odd position of straddling two different genres with very different expectations.

As long as they don't sell power it could work out very well. Lot of people are willing to trade money for time or so they can be a unique slowflake.

CutterJohn

2011-08-08, 01:18 PM

Free to play: If you pay, you are more powerful. If you don't pay, you are not, but still get to play.

Subscription: If you pay, you are infinitely more powerful because not paying means you cannot play at all.

So whats the problem? Why is that a fear? Thats a good deal. People who don't want to pay don't have to and still get to play, even if those that do pay have an advantage. The argument makes no sense at all.

Name one game that you've played, not heard about playing, not seen on a banner ad, but a game you've played where your personal experience was ruined because you felt like playing for free.

NlightN

2011-08-08, 01:49 PM

Micro + Subs is the worst option. It feels like your being nickle and dimed as well as obligated to play as much as possible.

It's not micro + subs.....with that model the majority of the players would be paying just $4.99/mo (ppl spend more than that a month for the Sunday paper here in the US) which would be just a sub. BUT, those who have more funds than they know what to do with, and want to deck out their characters or outfits with "non-gameplay" affecting options only like I said would add a supplementary source of income for PS2. Ahead of this, I say they should have maybe a one-week free trial to let players experience the massive warfare and char advancement in PS2, and then they'll see how much game they're getting for a measley 5 bucks a month. Like others have said, I don't think a primarily F2P model would create the ideal playerbase nor atmosphere that we want to see in this game.

The thing about Planetside is that you'll want to draw in more cashflow than the standard instanced based FPSs, but much less than the WoWish behemoth RPG MMOs so such a minute subscription fee seems to be well within reason.

Raymac

2011-08-08, 05:06 PM

Remember Fodderside? When they did that program allowing players to play up to like BR 6 or something like that for free and try out the game? It brought in a huge influx of players and revitalized Planetside. Those were all people who were hesitant on paying for a game but were willing to try it out. If we had that refined, got the hacking concerns sorted, and allowed players to go much higher than BR6 (but it might take them longer than a paying customer), then we'd likely retain such players and keep the game thriving.

Most FPS games out on the market are also buy-once, play forever, so PS is in an odd position of straddling two different genres with very different expectations.

As long as they don't sell power it could work out very well. Lot of people are willing to trade money for time or so they can be a unique slowflake.

^This

Huma

2011-08-08, 05:13 PM

Box cost and sub here. You shouldn't have to pay money for perks you should already have. Besides you get what you pay for and I've played enough to know the difference.

MasterChief096

2011-08-08, 05:16 PM

I think the game should $40-$60 dollars right off the bat.

After that you have three options for playing:

1. Free-to-play, but instituted like reserves in PlanetSide 1. You can get to BR6 but no further and can train those skills offline etc like everyone else, but no going past BR6 till you upgrade.

2. Monthly sub, $5-$10 monthly subscription. $15 is a bit high for an FPS, and I think it would deter people. Once you subscribe, you can pass BR6. If you unsubscribe past BR6 you can't play that character, you have to play another BR6 you have.

3. Hour purchase. APB did this in the beginning and I think its a good model. You can purchase say 40 hours of in-game play time for like $15 or something. Before you get all critical, this sounds like a low amount of time for us hard core PS players that spent well over 40 hours a month playing the game, however as previously stated, not everyone plays enough in one month to justify a monthly fee. Therefore these types of people can purchase a set of hours for some money and play whenever they get time. A lot of guys only log on during the weekends or for an hour or so every night. This would cater to them. Of course price per hour could be discussed.

That concludes the options for playing PlanetSide, and of course include the micro-transaction shop for cosmetic/convenience stuff for additional income.

EASyEightyEight

2011-08-08, 05:19 PM

At it's very base, the game should be Buy2Play. This way, anyone treating it like any other FPS can simply purchase the game and join in. If you pay for the subs, you get various perks towards training, or maybe getting to the front of the queue for a poplocked area. Offering convenience for subscription members is the best policy, but somewhere in there, there has to be the real hook. Speeding up training may seem like a "pay for power" play, but honestly, how many here would pay monthly simply to get moved to the front of the line for a poplock?

Then of course, we have cosmetic micro-transactions, which could include various different forms of sights, silencers, face masks, armor pieces, etc. Stuff that already exists in game already, and could even by tied to specific certs/skills, one would just have access to alternate models and textures.

B2P also discourages hackers, cheaters, and all other forms of rampant griefing a pure F2P would have. If any of them are willing to constantly shell out $60 for new accounts, an additional subscription wouldn't stop them. They'd probably never survive their first free month.

Avirau

2011-08-08, 05:22 PM

Full-price box purchase. Microtransactions should be EXCLUSIVELY for cosmetic items - no "pay-to-win" items whatsoever. A small sub fee would certainly be acceptable, but I don't think I'd want to pay $15 a month for too long on top of a full purchase.

NewSith

2011-08-08, 05:27 PM

B2P for a big price. Faster XP via premiums. Aesthetic micros. Plus, maybe, more expensive Outfit micros, allowing aesthitics outfit-wise, exclusive for only outfit-purchase.

SavageB

2011-08-08, 06:28 PM

MasterChief096

2011-08-08, 06:34 PM

Box cost (49.99)
Monthly sub fee (15)- STANDARD
MT

This is what its going to be, rant and rave all you want about any other ideas, it isnt gonna happen, although I m sure some of your ideas are respected on these forums, all I see is rubbish.

Umm, I'm pretty sure SOE has the sense to see that 15 a month with no other options is a VERY bad idea considering today's FPS playerbase.

SavageB

2011-08-08, 06:44 PM

Umm, I'm pretty sure SOE has the sense to see that 15 a month with no other options is a VERY bad idea considering today's FPS playerbase.

Why is that?

Kids can go out and spend 20 bucks on a friday night going to see a movie at the theatres but cant chuck out 15 bucks a month for game that will give you a MONTHS worth of entertainment??? Worked for every other MMO....Just cause they are not RPG players doesnt mean they will not know the diff/value of a good game. If your reasoning is because FPS players cant afford 15 a month, or you for ex. cant afford 15 a month ( which I know is not true cause I see you in PS1 now as is) then what are they doing with there free time playing games anyways :) I personally, do not have any problems forking out 60+ bucks for the box plus 15 a month for years of patches, expansions etc. It's been the standard for years, I cannot see it changing anytime soon with this game. If the fanbase want whats best for the game, then fork out the money. If you want years of of entertainment, then fork out the money. Someone mentioned something like what APB did...LOL....look what happened to that game. This is the difference, SOE will put lots of content in this game , unlike other companies trying to rob the playerbase, IE. Hi-Rez with LOl agenda tried , IE. APB tried, but turned out to be a joke. As I said previous which is my personal opinon, expect $15/month for a sub to this game or something around that figure give or take a dollar or two.

If you are talking about all the halo fanboys, I couldnt care less because they are all 12 year old brats anyways, cant say Id want them around as is.

Oh and Higby, T-ray or even you smed, if you are reading this, please give us an option that we can buy a year sub or even lifetime, I know I would be down for it.

NewSith

2011-08-08, 06:49 PM

Why is that?

Kids can go out and spend 20 bucks on a friday night going to see a movie at the theatres but cant chuck out 15 bucks a month for game that will give you a MONTHS worth of entertainment??? Worked for every other MMO....Just cause they are not RPG players doesnt mean they will know the diff/value of a good game.

Personally I always considered PS sub one of the minor factors that caused its downfall.

SavageB

2011-08-08, 07:03 PM

Personally I always considered PS sub one of the minor factors that caused its downfall.

It had nothing to do with it's downfall at all. First off, planetside unforuntately was released ahead of it's time, secondly some game mechanics were implemented in correctly AKA BFR. The community wanted something like a "heavy" tank, SOE just went about it in the wrong way. Also, cheating became a huge problem after a while, but in all honesty I think it's real problem even before the game came out was the lack of marketing for the game. I did not even know about it until a associate of mine said hes trying out this 7 day trial to this newish game called Planetside. I was a hardcore FPS player for years and never onec heard about that game until he mentioned it to me, which I found very strange.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, SOE also continued to put out more expansions or , new stuff when the previous stuff implemented in the game was clearly broken and unbalanced, this was a huge problem for a lot of people, in this game or any.

Malorn

2011-08-08, 07:08 PM

Umm, I'm pretty sure SOE has the sense to see that 15 a month with no other options is a VERY bad idea considering today's FPS playerbase.

That, and Smed already said there would be "free to play elements".

Its part of the story....how much of it remains to be seen. I think these hybrid models similar to DDO are pretty dead-on.

SavageB

2011-08-08, 07:11 PM

That, and Smed already said there would be "free to play elements".

Its part of the story....how much of it remains to be seen. I think these hybrid models similar to DDO are pretty dead-on.

The only free part I can see is a socialization aspect or a low level cap. As you know as well as I do that no one would enjoy that, but it remains to be unseen what that will encompass.

Huma

2011-08-08, 07:13 PM

Personally I hope they use the same system their using for EQ2. You can play but you have limited access to the game. If you pay the monthly then you get full access. I can see that getting abused though. Look at the trial account issue we had with hackers. But the monthly has to stay. That constant stream of revenue is what keeps the game going and content coming.

NewSith

2011-08-08, 07:14 PM

It had nothing to do with it's downfall at all. First off, planetside unforuntately was released ahead of it's time, secondly some game mechanics were implemented in correctly AKA BFR. The community wanted something like a "heavy" tank, SOE just went about it in the wrong way. Also, cheating became a huge problem after a while, but in all honesty I think it's real problem even before the game came out was the lack of marketing for the game. I did not even know about it until a associate of mine said hes trying out this 7 day trial to this newish game called Planetside. I was a hardcore FPS player for years and never onec heard about that game until he mentioned it to me, which I found very strange.

I've knew about this game from PCG, but I couldn't afford it until the price was adapted to Russian market. That only happened in 2006.

Also, you know, I didn't return to ps until I got 45 days thingy. I mean I wasn't willing to pay to return to a game I bought and wasted around 190$ to keep playing it. And that is all considering that PS key costs 5 bucks in Russia. Now if you multiply it by 3 you get 570 bucks for a mere European.

No fast xp,

Fast XP does not ruin the game unless leveling takes half a year, wanker mode on...

Malorn

2011-08-08, 07:22 PM

The only free part I can see is a socialization aspect or a low level cap. As you know as well as I do that no one would enjoy that, but it remains to be unseen what that will encompass.

I imagine it would be more than fodderside, which was more of a free demo than it was free-to-play. They can do quite a bit of stuff with free to play. Its all about finding the right tradeoffs for paying vs not paying. Gotta make the paying worthwhile without resorting to power. Convenience and vanity are the usual methods, or being able to store more stuff (resources, bank slots, etc).

SavageB

2011-08-08, 07:25 PM

I've knew about this game from PCG, but I couldn't afford it until the price was adapted to Russian market. That only happened in 2006.

Also, you know, I didn't return to ps until I got 45 days thingy. I mean I wasn't willing to pay to return to a game I bought and wasted around 190$ to keep playing it. And that is all considering that PS key costs 5 bucks in Russia. Now if you multiply it by 3 you get 570 bucks for a mere European.

I also returned on that 45 day pass on both my accounts, first time Ive played PS since 06....I missed the game for years, but leveling up in PS gets you know where in life but now that Im BR40 in real life aka Instrumentation Engineer working with an international well know eng. firm designing oil and gas plants, I may return to the game I missed so much and look forward to its growth as the sequel approaches.

Maybe it's harder for some of you to afford 15 a month( not saying you Newsith), but as I stated previous, if you want a AAA game then the money has to be there from the fanbase as the game goes on. Smed stated that they will layout a three year plan for us to review and to encourage and give feedback on what we think will be right or wrong, where will that money come from??? Certainly not from a F2P game thats for sure, certainly not from a 4.99/ month sub fee either. This is a business, this is also something that hasnt really been done to this scale ever in the FPS world, so much opportunity and Im glad and happy that it is Planetside 2 breaking out and Im more than happy to chip in my 15/ month and watch this in excitment for the future.

On another note, there will not be any XP advantages because of money, they want this game to be fair to everyone, if you want more xp, then play the game more then He/She next to you, to me that is fair and right.

EDIT:Something else I forgot to mention, Blizzard is currently making there FPS MMO called TITAN, do any of you think that the sub will be anything less than 15 a month?? I highly doubt it.

SavageB

2011-08-08, 07:27 PM

I imagine it would be more than fodderside, which was more of a free demo than it was free-to-play. They can do quite a bit of stuff with free to play. Its all about finding the right tradeoffs for paying vs not paying. Gotta make the paying worthwhile without resorting to power. Convenience and vanity are the usual methods, or being able to store more stuff (resources, bank slots, etc).

Ya I hear ya, but I think a good majority of those F2P players will eventually see the amazingness and then sub :D

NlightN

2011-08-08, 08:21 PM

Maybe it's harder for some of you to afford 15 a month( not saying you Newsith), but as I stated previous, if you want a AAA game then the money has to be there from the fanbase as the game goes on. Smed stated that they will layout a three year plan for us to review and to encourage and give feedback on what we think will be right or wrong, where will that money come from??? Certainly not from a F2P game thats for sure, certainly not from a 4.99/ month sub fee either. This is a business, this is also something that hasnt really been done to this scale ever in the FPS world, so much opportunity and Im glad and happy that it is Planetside 2 breaking out and Im more than happy to chip in my 15/ month and watch this in excitment for the future.

Sure paying a fifteen dollar a month sub isn't an issue to me nor you as us being more of the dedicated players, but we don't represent the majority or what the average player would be willing to pay.

It would be pretty thick-headed for SOE to charge a triple A premium for a non-rpg game, in today's market, with all the big named games from big named companies competing for players standard monthly subs. And you know most players aren't willing to dish out two AAA premium subs. They might have been able to get away with it back in 03, which didn't even have half the number of subscriber based games then that we do now, and even then, PS wasn't nearly as successful as it could have been as some would argue, partly because of that.

At my suggested $4.99/month subscription fee, I guarantee you that the number of subs would be close to double what those would be with a standard premium so your issue about it not being enough to pay the bills is mute. And with an aesthetic driven micro-trans store, ideally that would surpass what they would bring in from a full premium sub model from 'niche' players like us alone.

I really hope, but am really doubtful that SOE is thinking along the same lines as you. Thats the reason I started this thread though, in the case that they might even be pondering the idea and showing from the players responses just how naive that would be, possibly jeopardizing the success of this game.

Malorn

2011-08-08, 09:19 PM

NlightN

2011-08-09, 10:14 AM

Lots of reasons to have F2P elements, especially if they plan on a console release. Young gamers don't always have a salary or jobs and they get games as gifts. Parents usually aren't willing to shell out subscriptions for their kids to play a game so the buy-once, play forever is a good model for them. You'll get more players in the game. More players keep the game alive and net more players, some of whom will pay and overall they'll get more revenue and we'll benefit from a high pop game.

I don't think a pure box copy only will be enough to sustain PS2 alone, their talking multiple servers, I'm guessing around seven or eight just at release time so there needs to be some form of 'steady' cash flow. I don't see a primarily F2P model working as most players wouldn't take part in the micro store unless there was some additional power to gain, which is a big no no in PS2.

B2P, as some of you suggested could work though. Maybe at a price of 10 hours per US dollar, but then when you get up to about ten, start having the real value come in, and at fifteen bucks which would be equivalent to a monthly sub should give you one month of unlimited game time.

Aractain

2011-08-09, 11:51 AM

Buying minuets is even worse than subs for making people feel like they are on the clock.

That was one of APB's dumbest ideas.

The mordern audiance is very used to box price + DLC (look at CoD). Thats roughly the equivolent of a box price and new content packs and cosmetic options.

Considering Tribes ascend and Firefall are both free to play and both look good enough that PS2 is still only left with scale as its sole advantage over others. Are people going to put down 5, 10 or 15 a month for JUST scale?

I doubt it. A normal sub will kill the game again imo.

NlightN

2011-08-09, 01:21 PM

Buying minuets is even worse than subs for making people feel like they are on the clock.

That was one of APB's dumbest ideas.

How so? The only real difference to that of a sub (going by my example) would be that the hardcore players would be buying the unlimited monthly card/pack, while the casual player, weekend warrior or whatever, would purchase the dollar increments buying himself just enough time to last through the weekend.

The mordern audiance is very used to box price + DLC (look at CoD). Thats roughly the equivolent of a box price and new content packs and cosmetic options.

Considering Tribes ascend and Firefall are both free to play and both look good enough that PS2 is still only left with scale as its sole advantage over others. Are people going to put down 5, 10 or 15 a month for JUST scale?

I doubt it. A normal sub will kill the game again imo.

Five bucks for massive warfare on PS2s scale, yeah I'm sure players will find that reasonable, but anything more than that is taking a big chance, being that alot of players are already paying the fifteen dollar prime for WoW, WaR, or EvE or whatever.

Malorn

2011-08-09, 01:27 PM

I know it seems counter-intuitive, but free play actually brings in more revenue because not every player plays for free. Some will, but others who are used to a subscription and want the extra perks will pay and sustain the game. Players who start free to play don't always stay that way and may start paying a sub or use the store, etc. The main reason f2p does this is because it makes the game more alive by bringing in more bodies. MMOs live and die with their playerbases. F2P gives a huge playerbase, if even 1/3 of those players pay it can still be more than a sub-only with much smaller player base. But the smaller playerbase can easily turn into a dying game while the f2p model keeps the game healthy and growing.

See this video for more details about why its good and where it can go wrong:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3689-Microtransactions

MasterChief096

2011-08-09, 01:33 PM

Personally I think 5 or 10 dollars a month would draw in double the amount of subscribers as would a 15 dollar subscription.

Add in being able to purchase 40 hours for 15 dollars or something and now all the one-hour-a-day and weekend warriors will be happy. (Not everyone plays MMOs, especially FPSes, enough to justify a monthly subscription, regardless of how cheap it might be).

Include free-to-play but limited, and you tempt people with one of the two offers above, most will probably upgrade at some point in time.

Have the micro-transaction shop and you get money from everyone.

Make the box 40-60 dollars, and bam, instant revenue.

Unless the game totally fails at launch the model above would work just fine to sustain it and continue development IMO.

Malorn

2011-08-09, 01:38 PM

NlightN

2011-08-09, 02:51 PM

If they can truly solve the hacking issues (lol) then not having a box cost would bring in a lot more players. Lots of people willing to try something that they don't have to pay for. Then once they try it they love it and then start paying later.

Or how about a two week free trial instead, with limited character advancement, maybe one MA rifle to use, some novice medic abilities to try out or whatever, allowing players to get a taste of the progression that will be the staple of PS2. Don't take away the bread and butter boxed copy though - that's going to be the baseline for bringing in revenue. A F2P based model just doesn't seem sufficient enough to meet the ambitious goals the devs are trying to reach with this game.

Malorn

2011-08-09, 03:25 PM

F2P is a business model, it isn't a free trial where you play the role of a drug dealer and say "first one's free, but then you have to pay!" - it completely bypasses the whole point of F2P. You have players, particularly younger ones who cannot pay, don't have credit cards, etc. They'll likely turn into paying customers later. Additionally, you also have people that might take a break from the game. If it's F2P you have plenty of encouragement for them to come back and play again and then start paying again after that.

Point is they are contributing to the game and the people are what makes MMOs work. Without people, the game is boring. It's a positive feedback loop. If you have players, its easier to get more players. The opposite is also true...a dying game only accelerates its decay. If there's little or nothing going on in the game nobody is going ot play it. Its even more true for Planetside which is entirely player-driven. There's no NPCs you can go muck with if you hit a lull.

If you already allow people to play for free for a short time, why not extend it? Why not make them first class citizens? There are ways to make money off of that (see the video I linked above). If you'r ewilling to pay for people to play a free trial why not let them play the whole time?

Seriously watch that video...it explains it a lot better than I can here in text.

Raymac

2011-08-09, 03:37 PM

Malorn is right. MMO's with a free-to-play aspect are simply a reality of the business world today. And frankly, in a game like PS2 that is 100% PvP, if you want to attract AND sustain the numbers of players needed for the scale, in today's economy, it will need a free-to-play aspect. What we will likely see is what is going on in many many other games which is a "premium subscription" option combined with a "free-to-play" option.

NlightN

2011-08-09, 08:23 PM

Stop with the "younger players can't play cause of CC req" argument. What's the primary demograph for WoW?....players under the age of eighteen. And we know how horrible that game is doing :rolleyes:. If the game is engaging and immersive enough, players will get a hold of someone with a credit card to cover them. Then with a sub that's less than half the standard, that person will be alot more inclined to pay as well.

Again, a F2P model might work for standard MMOs, but ppl have a whole different opinion on what they consider justifiable in paying for an FPS, even a heavily suped up one like PS2. I imagine the number of premium subs would be much less than they'd be in those other F2P + sub models resulting in a heavy loss in revenue comparatively.

exLupo

2011-08-10, 06:55 AM

I'm going to back Malorn up on this one. A freemium model, as stated above, will be welcoming to both the normal western "pay for the box" FPS crowd as well as the new breed of persistent growth FPS player who is accustomed to the cash shop. Erring on the side of income fairness, the cash shop won't be pay2win but it's a little (imo the best) of both worlds to attract both markets.

The only possible hitch is ingrained prejudice. There's not much more to be said other than that western gamers have this strong and irrational bias against freemium titles. There is a wealth of evidence against all of the complaints that people bring against the genre and very little to back up the bad sides out of what, anymore, amount to outliers or specific genres.

Western gamers need to get over their knee-jerk "if it's free, it's not for me" bias. I have yet to see anyone successfully argue that idea that free play ruins games. The closest I've seen is people arguing it, getting shot down by the facts and then they stick their fingers in their ears.

With the growing popularity with of freemium titles (new and retrofit), the western buying power is growing more and more welcoming of the model. There's already a whole generation of gamer that hasn't gamed through the horror of EQ1's failed pay2win experiment. Those gamers who are blindly against the concept due to old fears will convert or die off as the years roll on. Hopefully their feelings won't hurt PS2's player numbers.

Timmy

2011-08-10, 09:29 AM

See this video for more details about why its good and where it can go wrong:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3689-Microtransactions

I did watch this video and it does bring up good points. Being an MMOFPS there will be nothing to do if there aren't other players around to shoot. A model like this can almost guarantee healthy population numbers as long as they properly advertise the game this time. It's far less of a mental block against dropping "$50 for a game that might kick ass" than to know you have to spend "$50 and then an additional $5-13 a month for a game that might suck." The former shows optimism the latter pessimism.

Considering I saw TV commercials for the new CoD and then it went to have 2.6 million people playing on the first day - coincidence between advertising and population? I think not. $650 mil in 5 days return on investment and risk of advertising justified? I think so.

I don't necessarily want to bring up the fact that these are console games but I sort of do considering the mixed signals the guys gave regarding if this will be available on PS3. Console gamers are used to buying a game once and playing it as long as they want. If it indeed out for PS3 and they choose not to use proper and widespread advertising that will make people optimistic that the game might kick ass and it's worth trying it out then it will be a shame.

Hamma

2011-08-10, 11:02 PM

Quite a bit of potential with F2P for sure if they can get it right.

Kouza

2011-08-12, 02:00 AM

Zulthus

2011-08-12, 02:06 AM

Here is my thing, Back when EQ2 came out and decided they would do a monthly subscription they made a SHIT TON of money, because it actually became massive, because people could afford to stay on and Grind.

Now this FTP Model is coming out.... Do you really think all these companies are doing FTP to save you money? This is Sony we are talking about.

15 dollar monthly subscription is fine.... Who cant afford that? honestly? I don`t have a job, and I can afford it, along with my bills. I could afford it even better before I lost my job.

PROS of Monthly Subscription:
1. Hacking- Not many people like to pay money on a game they are banned from. Gets rid of a lot of hackers.

2. Maturity- Lots of little kids cant afford it, you end up with older players, who network to other older players about the fun they are having.

Pros of FTP

1. Little johny whose mom wont give him 15 dollars a month can play, and get cr5, and global about how he likes gum balls.

2. Hackers can fuck up, and create an extra account.

3. You end up having to pay 15 dollars a month any way, unless you want to spend twice the time grinding, not be able to customize your character the way you want to, Spec certain trees, use certain items, The list goes on.

I played World of tanks. It was fun, I will give it that, I felt like I was paying less when I shelled out 6.99 at a time instead of 15 every month. The truth was when it came down to it, The premium account (the thing you need to actually get decent EXP) cost 15 a month. Then you had to pay to "Convert Experience", meaning if you used your T-34 (Tier 5), and Got to the T-34-85 (Tier 6), You had to pay money to receive any sort of benefit from the T-34 after that, unless you wanted to play it with no gain.

FTP sucks.... Companies use the business model for a reason... Not because it saves you money.

I completely agree with this post -- There should be no F2P model whatsoever, every MMO game I've ever played that is F2P sucks because-

1. Little whiny kids
2. Hackers run rampant
3. Cash Shop

I also agree that $15 a month is extremely affordable, I don't see why people call it an unreasonable price for such a good game.

Let's not give PS2 a F2P model.

MasterChief096

2011-08-12, 02:14 AM

Here is my thing, Back when EQ2 came out and decided they would do a monthly subscription they made a SHIT TON of money, because it actually became massive, because people could afford to stay on and Grind.

Now this FTP Model is coming out.... Do you really think all these companies are doing FTP to save you money? This is Sony we are talking about.

15 dollar monthly subscription is fine.... Who cant afford that? honestly? I don`t have a job, and I can afford it, along with my bills. I could afford it even better before I lost my job.

PROS of Monthly Subscription:
1. Hacking- Not many people like to pay money on a game they are banned from. Gets rid of a lot of hackers.

2. Maturity- Lots of little kids cant afford it, you end up with older players, who network to other older players about the fun they are having.

Pros of FTP

1. Little johny whose mom wont give him 15 dollars a month can play, and get cr5, and global about how he likes gum balls.

2. Hackers can fuck up, and create an extra account.

3. You end up having to pay 15 dollars a month any way, unless you want to spend twice the time grinding, not be able to customize your character the way you want to, Spec certain trees, use certain items, The list goes on.

I played World of tanks. It was fun, I will give it that, I felt like I was paying less when I shelled out 6.99 at a time instead of 15 every month. The truth was when it came down to it, The premium account (the thing you need to actually get decent EXP) cost 15 a month. Then you had to pay to "Convert Experience", meaning if you used your T-34 (Tier 5), and Got to the T-34-85 (Tier 6), You had to pay money to receive any sort of benefit from the T-34 after that, unless you wanted to play it with no gain.

FTP sucks.... Companies use the business model for a reason... Not because it saves you money.

No one here wants complete free form F2P, and only F2P.

Hackers would still be non-existent if PlanetSide 2 were F2P if you had to pay 60 dollars to buy the game. No hacker is going to pay 60 dollars for the game and get banned. To make it so he can't just keep making station accounts have your station account get signed to your copy of the game via its CD Key, thus not allowing you to play on other accounts with the same copy, meaning the hacker would have to shell another 60 dollars to hack again.

Those problems are extremely prominent in games like Silk Road, FlyFF, and pretty much every other Korean grindfest MMORPG out there that you can download for free, and play for free, but PS2 won't be like that.

Most people here advocate some form of F2P (maybe limited to BR or a slow EXP gain) with the option of purchasing a monthly subscription. I myself have proposed being able to purchase 40 hours for a set fee as well for people who don't play enough in one month to justify paying a monthly subscription. The cash shop is added in only for cosmetic stuff so it won't be pay2win or pay2gainEXPfaster.

I agree that those problems you mentioned are really bad in COMPLETE F2P games, but PS2 won't be completely F2P. At least I hope it won't.

Zulthus

2011-08-12, 02:19 AM

No one here wants complete free form F2P, and only F2P.

Hackers would still be non-existent if PlanetSide 2 were F2P if you had to pay 60 dollars to buy the game. No hacker is going to pay 60 dollars for the game and get banned. To make it so he can't just keep making station accounts have your station account get signed to your copy of the game via its CD Key, thus not allowing you to play on other accounts with the same copy, meaning the hacker would have to shell another 60 dollars to hack again.

Those problems are extremely prominent in games like Silk Road, FlyFF, and pretty much every other Korean grindfest MMORPG out there that you can download for free, and play for free, but PS2 won't be like that.

Most people here advocate some form of F2P (maybe limited to BR or a slow EXP gain) with the option of purchasing a monthly subscription. I myself have proposed being able to purchase 40 hours for a set fee as well for people who don't play enough in one month to justify paying a monthly subscription. The cash shop is added in only for cosmetic stuff so it won't be pay2win or pay2gainEXPfaster.

I agree that those problems you mentioned are really bad in COMPLETE F2P games, but PS2 won't be completely F2P. At least I hope it won't.

I still think that a $15 dollar/mo sub fee is still completely affordable though, even if I would only play a total of a week in a given month.

I have the feeling, that like EQ, their "cosmetic" cash shop will in time turn into a "rent this weapon for x days", or "increase your xp gain by x". Time will tell though.

Kouza

2011-08-12, 02:22 AM

exLupo

2011-08-12, 02:58 AM

Off topic.... If you are worried about 15 dollars a month you should not be playing this game.

There's being worried about putting food on the plate and being worried about making a bad purchase. I don't care if I'm paying $1k for a tv or $3.50 for a gallon of gas, if what I'm buying isn't worth the price, it's not worth the price.

PS2 is going to be compared to both the MMO and FPS markets. MMOs are more and more moving to a freemium model and FPS are, with rare exceptions, totally free. Can you get in other FPS what you can in PS2? No. Can you get something that is similar in a whole lot of ways? Yes.

The buy-in price hurt PS back when every MMO was $15. Now that the market is moving away from that model, it will only do more damage today.

Kouza

2011-08-12, 03:08 AM

There's being worried about putting food on the plate and being worried about making a bad purchase. I don't care if I'm paying $1k for a tv or $3.50 for a gallon of gas, if what I'm buying isn't worth the price, it's not worth the price.

PS2 is going to be compared to both the MMO and FPS markets. MMOs are more and more moving to a freemium model and FPS are, with rare exceptions, totally free. Can you get in other FPS what you can in PS2? No. Can you get something that is similar in a whole lot of ways? Yes.

The buy-in price hurt PS back when every MMO was $15. Now that the market is moving away from that model, it will only do more damage today.

If they make it good they will come. Basically when this game comes out they will have EVERY ps1 player, and more. If they make it good.... These players will play and, the game will expand.

Aractain

2011-08-12, 03:19 AM

Off topic.... If you are worried about 15 dollars a month you should not be playing this game... You should be getting a second job, or one period. I don`t Care how much it is in Europe, I`m sick of worrying about countries that are not my own, when they spit on us. Thank you.

It will be interesting when you show up on the forums of End of Nations(RTS), Firefall, Tribes Ascend, APB and whatever else comes out free to play and shout at all people there that they should get a job.

Its not about money, its about state of mind and perspective.

exLupo

2011-08-12, 03:24 AM

If they make it good they will come. Basically when this game comes out they will have EVERY ps1 player, and more. If they make it good.... These players will play and, the game will expand.

If you make it good, you'll get all of the:
AOC: ...Conan fans and more. Freemium.
Lotro: ...LotR fans and more. Freemium.
EQ2: ...EQ1 fans and more. Freemium.
DDO: ...DnD fans and more. Freemium.
WAR: ...DAoC fans and more. Partial free.
Galaxies: ...Star Wars fans and more. Dead.
AC2: ...AC1 fans and more. Dead.

These games are part of what is used to define the AAA MMO market. Without them you have WoW and that's it. The odds of brewing a perfect MMO and banking on the pre-existing fanbase, with the exception of WoW, is a losing proposition.

The current market leader, WoW, has a free segment and and an microtrans system. Even SWToR speculated to have a cash shop at launch.

The traditional "$15/mo for unlimited play" scheme is a dead model.

Kouza

2011-08-12, 03:31 AM

It will be interesting when you show up on the forums of End of Nations(RTS), Firefall, Tribes Ascend, APB and whatever else comes out free to play and shout at all people there that they should get a job.

Its not about money, its about state of mind and perspective.

Ok.... I look at my finances on a monthly stand point. Thus

Planetside: 15 dollars a month.

WOT: 40 dollars (First month nothing crazy, no tanks purchased just playing, converting EXP, and what not)

State of mind: WTF
Perspective: I just paid more.

As to me showing up on those forums complain about their payment methods, If I was playing any of those games that have already announced their F2P Billing Method. That would make my a Hypocrite because, id be playing it along side them.

I`m not saying I wont play PS2 If it is F2P I`m not some crazy F2P hating Nazi but, I have to realize that its likely going to cost more, if I want to experience the game to its full extent, which sucks, and is a turn off.

Id still hit a super model If I had to take her to four, fifteen dollar dinners but, Id rather take her to one forty five dollar dinner.

Kouza

2011-08-12, 03:33 AM

All I am saying is, I play games to get out of my real life, and take a break. Not to pull out my wallet, and budget my bank account every time I want to level up.

Senyu

2011-08-12, 03:55 AM

This

exLupo

2011-08-12, 04:13 AM

^^^ Cute. Idealistic. Not representative of reality.

If cover charges kept out the riff raff, we wouldn't need bouncers. Will a fee keep out some people who just want to troll? Maybe but GeneralVega and the thriving, "racist, homophobic tween" segment of the paying XBL community show otherwise.

MMOs, All MMOs, need an attentive CS/Admin staff to deal with issues from hacking to harassment. While it has been argued that freemium games have less income (leading to less staff), Nexon's success and the recent notice of AoC's income doubling after going freemium are evidence to the contrary.

Basically, SOE's gotta pony up for good bouncers. Simply asking for $15 at the door is not now nor has it ever been remotely adequate.

Senyu

2011-08-12, 04:42 AM

Ya but its a start. And the monthly payment helps the game receive the funding it needs to stay alive and continue developing more content to add as it grows

exLupo

2011-08-12, 04:59 AM

Ya but its a start. And the monthly payment helps the game receive the funding it needs to stay alive and continue developing more content to add as it grows

That would be an argument for freemium as those titles, with rare exception, make more than schedule pay alternatives. On top of that, for a PvP game, you get more players which is, in itself, low cost content.

Zulthus

2011-08-12, 05:04 AM

All I know is I don't mind dishing out $15 for 3 games each right now. I barely even play the other two. You're all making such a big deal out of this. "Freemium" games suck, IMO. They're all boring and have crap communities (from the few I've played.) Regardless, PlanetSide 2 is a huge title and tens of thousands will be glad to pay $15/mo.

exLupo

2011-08-12, 05:14 AM

"Freemium" games suck, IMO. They're all boring and have crap communities (from the few I've played.)

So, how you pay for something determines whether or not it's fun. Like, if I buy a coffee with a gift card it sucks but if I pay with cash it's cool. Doesn't make sense, does it? A study was run a few years ago to determine the average amount of cash players of freemium games pay per month. Want to hazard a guess?

$15/mo.

Funny, isn't it? $15/mo on average and yet they are are pulling in much, much more money than most $15/mo schedule pay games due to having much larger communities. Looking at the EQ2 and Runescape forums, the quality of the people playing the game is no different than WoW. Some people are great. Some people are trash. Every time some guy in a pricy car cuts you off, just remember that money doesn't magically turn people into quality members of society.

So it's time for you to back up your assessment of the AAA MMO freemium pay model genre. Please give a list of freemium games you've played that are AAA MMOs and provide analysis of the communities.

Zulthus

2011-08-12, 05:37 AM

So, how you pay for something determines whether or not it's fun. Like, if I buy a coffee with a gift card it sucks but if I pay with cash it's cool. Doesn't make sense, does it? A study was run a few years ago to determine the average amount of cash players of freemium games pay per month. Want to hazard a guess?

$15/mo.

Funny, isn't it? $15/mo on average and yet they are are pulling in much, much more money than most $15/mo schedule pay games due to having much larger communities. Looking at the EQ2 and Runescape forums, the quality of the people playing the game is no different than WoW. Some people are great. Some people are trash. Every time some guy in a pricy car cuts you off, just remember that money doesn't magically turn people into quality members of society.

So it's time for you to back up your assessment of the AAA MMO freemium pay model genre. Please give a list of freemium games you've played that are AAA MMOs and provide analysis of the communities.

Runes of Magic

Played this for about a month to check it out.

-Community the same as WoW, ask a question and the no-lifes deem you unfit to play their game.
-Cash shop makes the game unbalanced.

Dungeons & Dragons Online

Another game I checked out for a while

-Used to be a sub, now F2P and very boring.
-You have to PAY to get into certain areas.
-Much of the community consists of elitist pricks.

Team Fortress 2

Not large enough to be MMO, but close enough to where I'll mention it.

-Community is made up of 60% kids under the age of 9 always whining on the open mic.
-I don't like the game. I don't consider it "fun".

Global Agenda

...Do I really need to explain this one? At all? What a wreck.

All Points Bulletin

Trash. Was supposed to be an MMO, but was just small instances in the end.

Are you sated? I don't see why you're getting all worked up. I simply gave my opinion on the matter, and you pop out of nowhere trying to start something.

exLupo

2011-08-12, 05:45 AM

Are you sated? I don't see why you're getting all worked up. I simply gave my opinion on the matter, and you pop out of nowhere trying to start something.

Sated indeed. Actually making an argument is far better than your original "Herpy derp! Stuff I don't like sucks!" poke. The rest of the thread was productive. If you don't feel like contributing in kind, don't hit reply.

Thank you for expanding on your position. Even if some of it was hyperbolic.

Zulthus

2011-08-12, 05:49 AM

Sated indeed. Actually making an argument is far better than your original "Herpy derp! Stuff I don't like sucks!" poke. The rest of the thread was productive. If you don't feel like contributing in kind, don't hit reply.

Thank you for expanding on your position.

I have contributed by voicing my opinion on the topic of the thread, which was what would be the best business model for PS2. I also said "IMO," read again, "IMO, freemium games suck."

If I don't feel like contributing in kind? Lol. I actually contributed, better than what you've been doing.

Senyu

2011-08-12, 06:14 AM

Rather pay a flat 15/mo for a complete game having access to everything than a free game where you have to pay for things you want

exLupo

2011-08-12, 06:32 AM

Rather pay a flat 15/mo for a complete game having access to everything than a free game where you have to pay for things you want

Watch the Extra Credits episode on freemium. Properly done versions, like Lotro, don't stop players from accessing all content. In-game tokens can be traded for all content. Pay items that you can't get via in-game methods are conveniences (bag space, more cash, etc.) or vanity flair.

Not only are there ways it can be done right. There are games that are currently doing it right. I'd rather pay $0/mo for a complete game and having access to all in-game content as well as convenience and vanity enhancements than $15/mo for a complete game and having access to all in-game content and nothing else.

Free to play does not equate automatically to pay gated content. Can companies do that? Sure. Do all of them? No. People read "free to play" and assume a lot of things.

Price gouging
Pay 2 Win
Pay gated content
No real content
No support

None of these are endemic to the pay scheme. Do these exist in freemium and f2p games? Yes. Do these exist in monthly sub games? Also yes. One of the earliest and most egregious examples of pay 2 win was from EQ1 with a server you could buy raid gear on. Not a free game then. Not a free game now.

To be clear, I'm not lobbying to have PS2 be free tho I'm pretty sure (for the reasons above) it will. If it's $15/mo I'll easily pay. However, what I am arguing against is prejudice against a payment model based on outdated and simply incorrect information.

It doesn't matter what the topic is, if you are basing your opinions on a flawed data set or, worse, stating opinions as facts, you need to be brought up to speed so you can cut that crap out.

Kouza

2011-08-12, 01:06 PM

Aractain

2011-08-12, 01:45 PM

Rather pay a flat 15/mo for a complete game having access to everything than a free game where you have to pay for things you want

Almost every F2P game does this now. Its called a hybrid for a reason.

People that play a lot benfit from the sub based option and people who don't (AND PLAYERS ARE CONTENT! Valve knows this, so should you) pay for the stuff they want when they want it.

Without the f2p section most of second set of players simply wont play.

Obviously if you do it badly then it sucks but ANYTHING done badly sucks (did your $15 a month make BFRs awesome?). Its not hard to do f2p well as long as you make sure you don't sell power. Thats a pretty easy rule to follow (once you define what power is anyway).

exLupo

2011-08-13, 12:50 AM

This, I believe Lupo is living in a alternate universe where his arguments have any hold, Planetside 2 will be big, if it is advertised period.

"PlanetSide 2 is a huge title and tens of thousands will be glad to pay $15/mo." - Zulthus

In my alternate universe PS2 wil get hundreds of thousands of accounts if not over a million, f2p or not. If PS2 only has tens of thousands of people playing to pay, regardless of pay type, it's screwed. In my alternate universe Lotro, DDO and AoC had massive upswings in both player numbers and income by moving away from scheduled pay. I don't know what world I'm living in but it's one where freemium games are extremely profitable.

For more information about my world, spend some time on Gamasutra and get all you could want. If you wish to move to my world, a world where AAA titles aren't bleeding players and are making money hand over fist, you're free to come on over. All you need to do is take of your blinders and pull your fingers out of your ears. Choosing to ignore facts hasn't ever done anyone any favors.

Zulthus

2011-08-13, 01:00 AM

Just saying, you're fooling yourself if you think Planetside 2 will get a million subs.

exLupo

2011-08-13, 01:37 AM

Just saying, you're fooling yourself if you think Planetside 2 will get a million subs.

While over a million is ambitious, hundreds of thousands (10x your estimate) is well within reach.

EVE peaks daily at about 40,000 simultaneous players (shown on login screen). Not players that are "glad to pay $15/mo". That's in the hundreds of thousands. How about TF2? It's at 47,000 right now and peaks daily at 70,000-80,000 simultaneous players.

You'd have PS2 aiming for the lofty heights of tens of thousands of paid accounts. You have no idea how this industry works. Tens of thousands hasn't been a goal for a major house in over a decade. Like I said. Do research on actual MMO companies. Look at the estimated player counts. Research the realities on the whole spectrum of pay types. With your current expectation, be prepared for an eye opening experience.

I used to be a freemium hater, too, up until the point where I let go of prejudice and started paying attention to facts.

Zulthus

2011-08-13, 02:31 AM

Nowhere did I say tens of thousands of players is the amount of people that would play; let me redirect you to my post.

Regardless, PlanetSide 2 is a huge title and tens of thousands will be glad to pay $15/mo.

See the difference?

exLupo

2011-08-13, 02:41 AM

See the difference?

There is no difference between the statements and I'll show you why.

Lets break this down.
1) You don't want any kind of free. This means every person pays $x/mo. You suggest $15.
2) "tens of thousands will be glad to pay $15/mo."

This leaves us with two groups.
$15/mo players.
Everything else.

If "tens of thousands" are paying $15 and there is nobody else then the maximum number of accounts is in the "tens of thousands" range. SOE will be pulling in $15/mo x 11000..99999 while every other major game in the MMO or freemium FPS genre, regardless of pay type, is hitting at least 10x that much per month.

By your own statement, the maximum number of accounts is "tens of thousands". Why is this the maximum number of accounts? Because if you have to pay $15/mo to play and only "tens of thousands" are willing to pay $15/mo (per your statement) then that's where you cap out. You're excluding every potential user who is not in the $15/mo bracket.

If that is not what you meant, please restate it a different way. Copy/pasting an incorrect statement doesn't accomplish anything.

Zulthus

2011-08-13, 02:45 AM

Even if the maximum number of players is under 100k, the game will go on perfectly fine. Probably 4 servers, 10 conts each. Each cont can have ~1000 players at once. 4x1000x10=40000. This leaves a 60k player surplus if 100k players decide to sub.

Be done, as I am now. Not sure why there's so much hostility in the forums, but I won't be a part of it.

exLupo

2011-08-13, 03:07 AM

No hostility from me, chummer. I'm just trying to stop the spread of prejudice. Bias spreads from person to person like wildfire, regardless of its veracity. It's part of the pack mind nature inherent to humans.

See, your math and perspective is way off. While it's true that there could be 40,000 players using today's pop caps as a base, that isn't the reality. During beta, these 333/333/333 caps did not exist. Early fights were 1000/1000/1000 or more. Unplayable? Sure but they were still there. Look around on this site. The faq discusses servers capable of sustaining hundreds of thousands of active accounts. Even the beta numbers broke 20,000 active accounts. That's a closed beta and one server.

EVE has 40,000 simultaneous players per day. Want to know how many active accounts, shelling out $15/mo? Over 400,000 this past November. You're just not thinking big enough. You haven't done the research, which is fine, not everyone is a numbers nerd, so you didn't know. It's ok. 1:10 simultaneous:active for schedule pay games isn't uncommon by any means.

Another set of numbers to chew on? Games that have gone from schedule pay to free have tripled their player base. At first, my gut says "Well, they're all freeloaders". However, at the same time that box prices and monthly fees are removed, the project's income doubles. Triple the player count. Double the income. These are real numbers. Just something to think about.

Kouza

2011-08-13, 01:07 PM

Lupo is arguing to have it be more expensive by his own arguments... I giggled.

Hamma

2011-08-13, 03:40 PM

It's really speculation to assume how many people would play this game.

If it's a hit it has the potential to be HUGE.

MasterChief096

2011-08-13, 03:48 PM

The gist of this thread is that if SOE doesn't have a monthly sub then they are doing something wrong. In addition, if they don't have some measure of F2P for those who don't want to pay monthly subs, they are also doing something wrong. And in my opinion, if they don't have the option to buy playing time in terms of hours, they are also doing something wrong.

The general discussion of this thread has pointed to the necessity of a financial model that caters to every type of gamer, in order to pull in the most population.

Crator

2011-08-13, 04:35 PM

^^^

That

ECM

2011-08-13, 05:52 PM

A hybrid system is likely what SOE is going to try to aim for, hence the whole 3 year model. All I can say is if PS2 is huge then I am going to shell out the subsciption fee (hopefully a bundled sub fee discount). But a f2p model would be great to help get my friends interested to spread the fanbase.

Zulthus

2011-08-13, 06:25 PM

F2P would be good for increasing subscriptions and fanbase. The only reason I am so against it is because of the massive amount of hackers that would use the feature. Even with a dedicated 24/7 security team, I'm pretty sure the hackers would be incessant. That is, unless, the F2P model requires a credit card to be entered. THEN, I would be all for a F2P feature.

Crator

2011-08-13, 09:40 PM

Good news, SOE did annouce they bought an anti-hacking program for PS2!

nathanebht

2011-08-13, 10:49 PM

No problem paying a $10 monthly subscription. $15 a month and I'd probably drop a month or two while I was heavily playing other games.

If PS2 goes F2P, then I'd pay to unlock certs so that I could then train them. Paying to advance faster or get an XP bonus seems tacky to me. I don't see how you can combine a $10 monthly subscription with a F2P model. I guess a $5 monthly would work with F2P.

Of course paying for cosmetic stuff doesn't bother me. The question is would it bring in enough money. One time fees to unlock premium certs would definitely bring in money and shouldn't upset the playerbase.

Kouza

2011-08-14, 12:21 AM

I`ll Pay 20 dollars a month if the game is good. Throwing it out there. Take my money sony, just make it worth my while :).

exLupo

2011-08-14, 01:38 AM

Lupo is arguing to have it be more expensive by his own arguments... I giggled.

citation required

---

edit: Let me help you with a quote from my own post

"Games that have gone from schedule pay to freemium have tripled their player base. At first, my gut says "Well, they're all freeloaders". However, at the same time that box prices and monthly fees are removed, the project's income doubles. Triple the player count. Double the income. These are real numbers. Just something to think about."

If anything, I'm arguing for it to be free so we can have 3x the players and SOE can have 2x the profit. But here, let me say it out loud for you: I'm not arguing for either. All I'm doing is trying to stop the spread of prejudice. If you need me to quote myself again so you can understand what's going on, I can.

/giggle

Kouza

2011-08-14, 03:42 AM

Basically By arguing a F2P Game brings in more money for the company....... The money does not just appear.

exLupo

2011-08-14, 04:56 AM

Basically By arguing a F2P Game brings in more money for the company....... The money does not just appear.

Indeed it does not "just appear". Had you actually read the thread you would know how this money -does- come from somewhere.

One more time, for anyone else who just skipped to the end of the thread:

Freemium games, before they were mainstream, averaged $15/mo per user. That includes the users that paid nothing being outmatched by people paying 2-3x as much on cash shop items. This number has grown with the familiarization of the market to this payment model. With the exception of WoW, every other AAA MMO has gone freemium and made -more- money for their trouble.

PSxCarebear

2011-08-14, 07:00 AM

I would like to see a P2P model. Never been a fan of F2P just out of person preference.

I can't stand having the cash store pushed on me constantly.

Crator

2011-08-14, 08:31 AM

There's a difference, or can be, between pure F2P games and P2P/F2P hybrids. Not that they exist, that I know of, but SOE is innovative so I don't see why they can't figure out something.

Pure F2P typically means development does'nt have a whole lot of money to start out with. So they get a base build that's kind of crappy and then go with it, full flegded cash markets. I agree, I don't like those games either. Doesn't mean SOE can't create a game that isn't crap and is a F2P/P2P hybrid. Just don't give people permanant power ups. But, I don't see an issue with one time use power ups.

Zulthus

2011-08-14, 03:10 PM

Freemium games, before they were mainstream, averaged $15/mo per user. That includes the users that paid nothing being outmatched by people paying 2-3x as much on cash shop items. This number has grown with the familiarization of the market to this payment model. With the exception of WoW, every other AAA MMO has gone freemium and made -more- money for their trouble.

Could you back up this data?

Hamma

2011-08-14, 11:34 PM

Here is one:
http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/01/06/turbine-lotro-revenue-tripled-since-going-f2p/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/01/07/free-makes-money-lotro-revenue-triples/

:D

Zulthus

2011-08-15, 12:12 AM

Here is one:
http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/01/06/turbine-lotro-revenue-tripled-since-going-f2p/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/01/07/free-makes-money-lotro-revenue-triples/

:D

Thanks for confirming it. Is LotRO the only game that has had this happen?

NlightN

2011-08-15, 10:21 AM

My concern with PS2 running a F2P model was not so much about being able to pull in enough players, but instead about bringing in enough income to revel this 'three year plan', and also concern about the rampant use of hacks and cheats in games that administer that business model.

But some of you have made it evident that a F2P model can actually bring in more than enough funding for the game, which also correlates to a more effective and thorough, anti-cheat team.

I guess if SOE can make a F2P work, I'll be all for it, as long as players can't make any game-breaking purchases....like NOT being able to instantly unlock ten or twenty BRs of skills ahead of everybody else.

Hamma

2011-08-15, 03:08 PM

Thanks for confirming it. Is LotRO the only game that has had this happen?

Not sure - that's the one I recall.

Kouza

2011-08-15, 11:27 PM

F2P Forfeits game quality, and community quality for profits.

nathanebht

2011-08-15, 11:48 PM

F2P Forfeits game quality, and community quality for profits.

Age of Conan went F2P not too long ago and seem to remember reading that it was a big success for them.

World of Tanks is another huge success.

True there are a lot of icky F2P games. However, I don't think you can make blanket statements about all F2P games. Its just a more successful revenue model.

Huma

2011-08-16, 12:20 AM

Malorn

2011-08-16, 06:22 AM

DDO is another game that was going down the crapper and was madly successful after F2P.

The EQ2 model Huma linked looks unsurprisingly very similar to the DDO model. It's proven to be successful.

So the question just becomes for PS2 - what are the differentiators?

If you look at the EQ2 list most of the differentiators are convenience-based, with a few 'what you can do'-based, like race and class selection.

I would not be surprised to see as set of core roles in PS2 free but some roles (like the command-rank one) would require a one-time purchase to acquire OR a subscription or something like that.

Some things just make sense to restrict for free players.
- limited chat & mail access (I expect this is mainly to prevent spammers from using free accounts to spam)
- not being able to create an outfit, but able to join one, etc

Other things like not being able to create an outfit also make. The moment you give them some amount of money they up your privileges.

Customization options may be limited for non-subscribers.

If you take it to the next level with free players being able to give missions to other players that's one reason I think that some classes/roles may be restricted to paying customers (could be one-time purchasable though, like DLC from other games, that's a well-established model). If guilds are managed via certifications then they too would also be restricted.

The in-game advertising one is an obvious carry-over. Eyeballs are always an easy internet sale. We had some of that in PS1 with the billboards. It might be similar to that, or more inconvenient. But it makes sense - they do have to get revenue from somewhere and if the players don't want to pay advertisers will. Customer support is another obvious carry-over. Customer support tends to be one of the more costlier parts of running a service. Servers, data, bandwidth, and maintenance are all rather small compared to having thousands of customers having problems with the service every day.

All that stuff has little to do with power. You could make a claim that class-access is a form of power-selling but some of it just makes sense. Also, DLC that is purchasable is something that is common in the gaming market these days, and you don't need to be able to use every cert in planetside in order to enjoy the game. You may not even care about half of them anyway but would probably shell out 5-10 bucks to play a class you are really interested in. As they add new content they could do it as restricted to subscription OR one-time-purchase or something like that.

I like the model a lot, especially if it brings in new players and anything that has power or accountability has some monetary cost paid.

Heaven

2011-08-16, 08:33 AM

Logit

2011-08-16, 09:45 AM

It would be nice to have an endless free trail, say to BR6 but also not giving these free trails the option to join an outfit or use certain items and even certain chats then this way we have some cannon fodder and a bigger pop.

I agree that F2P is a big turn off as it has a the cheap factor to it, I am willing to pay £8.99 a month for PS2 as I did for PS.

This.

8 years ago monthly subscriptions weren't as popular as they are now. A lot more people have this attitude now because, in most cases, the money is going back into the game.

Gimpylung

2011-08-16, 12:16 PM

NlightN

2011-08-16, 02:29 PM

Nice thread, good thrashing out of pros and cons of various revenue streams.

I gotta wonder if the OP is an SOE employee however, I get the impression that Smed and SOE haven't fully figured out the revenue yet, this thread must be very insightful for them if they haven't settled on a model.

My 2 cents, freemium and cashshop for vanity items. Freemium requires very effective anti-hacking measures however.

No, I'm just an average joe PS fan like you :). The reason I started this thread like I said in my op, is because the business model for PS2 will be a key point in determining the success of this game. So in hopes of not being limited to just the 'niche' based success that the first game had, we all here at the PS premier fansite :) could discuss the pros and cons of the standard MMO models, and maybe push any lurking devs to really contemplate what kind of model would best suit PS2.

Now my personal stance is that they should have the normal retail boxed copy to solidify a staple source of revenue, meaning less likelihood of undercutting players by needing to sell some sort of advantage to the buyer crowd in a primarily F2P model. Then add a store for cosmetic and convenience purchases, with maybe a sub option that includes access to the major purchases in the store.

And to those who say ("well ppl won't buy a game they haven't tried"), have a *two week free trial lasting until the population reaches their ideal level, and once it starts to drop, throw the trial back out again.

Graywolves

2011-08-16, 02:47 PM

I think making it F2P with limitations in either progression (less experience/rank cap) or elsewhere (certifications/skills)

I also got this idea where a F2P account would only have a few hours or so each day to play or so.

The idea of a F2P model is that you get the player to spend money through either actually subscribing or making other purchases for extra things.

I'd personally prefer to see a subscription model than anything else. A cash shop on top of this is also possible, WoW sells minipets and other random stuff that are pure aesthetics in the game. They also recently made it free to play to level 20, although this is after they lost 1million subscribers.

nathanebht

2011-08-17, 11:08 PM

Or if you want to see a current business model that SOE already has in place with the F2P/Pay mix:

http://everquest2.com/free_to_play/game_overview

I'd post it here but it turns into word vomit. I'm assuming since they have this system in place for 1 game they'll probably roll it into the next.

Good find Huma! Have to agree. They are likely to follow a similar model in PS2.

Pay money to get access to premium certs. Perhaps also pay money to get access to more continents. They could limit the battle rank of free players. However, note that they aren't limiting character levels in EQ2.

Kouza

2011-08-18, 10:18 PM

Age of Conan went F2P not too long ago and seem to remember reading that it was a big success for them.

World of Tanks is another huge success.

True there are a lot of icky F2P games. However, I don't think you can make blanket statements about all F2P games. Its just a more successful revenue model.

World of Tanks likely has the worse community ever... I did not meet one person in the games, only people I had already played with...... That seems like a forfeit of community considering I played for two months, and Was VERY social in every game I played in.

Krowe

2011-08-18, 10:24 PM

I still don't understand why more companies don't use the B2P model with a shop for vanity items. It sustained GW for god knows how long (still sustaining afaik)

Huma

2011-08-19, 12:59 AM

Good find Huma! Have to agree. They are likely to follow a similar model in PS2.

Pay money to get access to premium certs. Perhaps also pay money to get access to more continents. They could limit the battle rank of free players. However, note that they aren't limiting character levels in EQ2.

I think they'll go with something similar to Eve regarding the access to skills and such. Eve makes it so unless you pay the monthly you only have access to the basic skills. They don't nutter your ability to get out there and try to fight or your ability to travel.

exLupo

2011-08-19, 01:22 AM

^^^ Last time I tried to log into EVE without paying it gave me the finger. I think you're thinking trial accounts that can't access certain skills. 14 days.

Zulthus

2011-08-19, 01:23 AM

Yeah, there is no free component to EVE. If you pay you get to play, if you don't you get zilch.

Huma

2011-08-19, 10:32 PM

That's right trial accounts. I knew there was a way. Pretty much the same as a F2P account anyway. With the exception that a trial ends while the F2P acct keeps going obviously.

exLupo

2011-08-20, 12:54 AM

I am totally against permanently crippled f2p accounts. The way it currently is in EQ2 is that you can't access the best versions of your spells (you can get all levels but each spell has lesser incremental variants). It'd be like not being able to use all mods.

If they choose to cripple I prefer the Lotro way where paying by schedule unlocks everything but non-subscribers can also pay a la carte to permanently unlock features. On top of that, you can unlock everything in game via achievement points so players who don't want to pay for anything ever are rewarded, instead, for fully exploring the content of the game. Granted, it's a lot of work and people usually end up paying but simply giving players the option eases the sting and makes paying feel like a choice instead of a requirement. Important distinction, the feeling of choice versus no choice.

Really tho, I don't see any of that in PS2. If they do make it F2P all I imagine on the cash shop are xp boosters, personal resource boosters (maybe to a locked pool) and vanity items.

Nephilimuk

2011-08-20, 12:59 PM

Firstly it is down to SOE what model they choose.

Personally I find free to play unappealing as I just see it as death (cash) by a thousand cuts. I know DDO and other ageing MMO's have taken up the model to boost pop and revenue. However I am quite sure that has a lot to do with product life cycle. Free to play is not for me and I share the aversion expressed by other community members.

I would rather pay a flat monthly fee with a guarantee of regular updates and free expansions like what CCP do with EVE. It has almost become a covenant between the company and the players that 2 expansions are released every year. This keeps the game interesting a up to date both in content and with technology. If SOE follow through on what they commented on at Fan Fest I will be a very happy bunny.

I am fine for pay for vanity items but not to play or to gain edge. Hell if you guys want to get your Katy Perry or Justin t shirts to wear in combat who am I to say anything.