Payment schemes

[DviddLeff]

Putting this thread up for us to discuss payment ideas for the game, which is an extremely important aspect as it represents a hurdle that must be jumped before people can become players.

Most MMOs and PS1 included have the subscription option where you pay monthly... generally requiring a credit card to help pay for server upkeep and (hopefully) development of the game and moderators. FPS gamers are not used to this at all, aside from free games FPS's are a one payment deal.

Since PS was released we have seen other options develop; Guild Wars proved that a subscription free MMO could work, although you did pay for expansions as they were released.

We have also seen cash shops develop, and not only in MMOs but also in FPS games such as TF2. These shops have met with huge criticism when they have allowed players to purchase advantages and rightly so.

PS had a free trial program, "Reserves", which allowed people to play for free up to BR6 and another later trial that allowed people to play for 14 days. These initially worked fantastically to increase populations, but the 14 day trial was then abused by hackers forcing it to be shut down. This could have been averted by requiring a credit card for registration, or putting it through Steam for example.

Now for PS2 it is vital that we get as many players in the game as possible, and as such I suggest using a variety of different schemes:


Free Trial: Maximum BR6*, CR0*, Cannot lead squads
Box purchased only: Maximum BR10*, CR3*
Subscription: Maximum BR 20*, CR5*.
Once a player has been subscribed for three years, they get to carry on without paying further subscriptions.
Alternatively players could spend the equivalent of a years subscription to become a lifetime member, with the same opportunities of a subscribed player, but no recurring cost.


*BR/CR Values equivalent to PS1 ranks.

This scheme allows players to try the game, buy it like a standard FPS or MMO and get various (versatility) advantages by paying more, while still retaining the even playing field that the game needs.

Thoughts?

[Bruttal]

what happens when i cancel my subscription but already over BR10 CR3 just couldn't pay it this month or whatever

[bjorntju1]

I am not really a fan of a free 2 play model. What i personaly want is that you just buy the game in a store, and you can play as much as you want until a certain BR/CR and skill limit. You can still play if you reached the limit, but you cant gain a higher BR/CR. (ala Reserves) And if you buy an subscription you can get to the highest BR/CR possible and no skill limit. And since you are a subscriber you also get some more extra's. Such as some exclusive customization things only for subscribers. And they said there will be a cashshop. I assume it will use Station Cash then, and every month you will get some ''free'' station cash to buy ingame stuff with. And maybe some other features they didn't talk about yet.

So even though the Free 2 play model will bring much more players in, you also get much more assholes ruining it for the rest. Sure, you can ban them. But they will just make a new account since it is free. I think it is an better idea to just make it buy 2 play with an optional subscription, and if the player level comes to a critical level, they could always make the game free 2 play later such as TF2 did. And players who brought the game will get some extra's for buying the game before it was free to play.

The idea of a one time purchase for a lifetime subscription sounds good too. So i agree on most of your points. Apart for the free 2 play model with i am not that fan of. But maybe that is because almost every free to play game i played is shit. (TF2 doesn't count since you needed to buy that before the game became free)


what happens when i cancel my subscription but already over BR10 CR3 just couldn't pay it this month or whatever

Lets say you are BF 11 and CR4. You will keep that rank, you only can't progress further. But you will still keep the rank and the benefits that go with that rank.

[Redshift]

I'd like to see a gametime/subscription model

so people who play often can pay a flat rate per month, and casual players can pay on a per hour basis, as in buy 10 hours of game time for a few quid type thing

That way it's always cheaper to subscribe if you play lots, or if you only play for an hour a night you can pay as you go

[kaffis]

A subscription will kill this game. Unless it's preposterously cheap, at which point, you're better off just doing a cash shop of some sort.

If there's a perception that "playing PS2 is cool, but I can't afford a subscription and game X is good enough and doesn't have a bill attached," PS2 loses population the same way PS1 did.

[Brusi]

what happens when i cancel my subscription but already over BR10 CR3 just couldn't pay it this month or whatever

Good point, i spose your cert training advancement could be halted until you start paying again if you were already over the BR10 equiv.

I like the big, one-off and the minimum time subbed methods to allow life-long membership ideas, as this is one of the main reasons i stopped playing years ago.

who can afford to pay $15 a month for a game you maybe get to play once a month.

[Redshift]

The idea of a one time purchase for a lifetime subscription sounds good too.

That doesn't work btw, either the game folds before you recoup your money or the game carries on for longer and the company ends up loosing money from a lack of subs.
If you see a subs model like that it's most likely the game developer doesn't have high hopes for their product

[bjorntju1]

That doesn't work btw, either the game folds before you recoup your money or the game carries on for longer and the company ends up loosing money from a lack of subs.
If you see a subs model like that it's most likely the game developer doesn't have high hopes for their product

Maybe, but it is also a good way to bring money in fast when the game is released. They could do it as a special action where you could get a life time subscription in the first week/month the game is released. and after that you can't buy it anymore. If something like that would come i would probably buy it depending on the price. It it is something like 200 i wouldn't do it. But if it is around 100 i probably will. They also already have a 3 year plan for the game so i don't suppose they will kill of the game after a year.

[Bags]

A subscription will kill this game. Unless it's preposterously cheap, at which point, you're better off just doing a cash shop of some sort.

If there's a perception that "playing PS2 is cool, but I can't afford a subscription and game X is good enough and doesn't have a bill attached," PS2 loses population the same way PS1 did.

Proof? PS1 didn't die because it had subs.
____________________
Wow Leff, I never thought I'd agree with you on anything. That's pretty much exactly what I came up with when I thought about it.

[Logit]

A subscription will kill this game. Unless it's preposterously cheap, at which point, you're better off just doing a cash shop of some sort.

If there's a perception that "playing PS2 is cool, but I can't afford a subscription and game X is good enough and doesn't have a bill attached," PS2 loses population the same way PS1 did.

Doubtful.

There is a long list of reasons why PS1 didn't succeed, but I think it's pretty safe to say that the subscriptions were a very small part of that.

Now that subscriptions are fairly common place I don't see it being much of an issue at all. But to say it was the reason the game failed, or the next one will is a tad ridiculous.

[Sirisian]

One of my friends on IRC wouldn't play PS1 because of the subscription. There are a small set of people that don't see the reason for having a subscription for a game and prefer expansion packs a la guild wars.

Personally I'd prefer a 50 USD release with 1 month free then a 10 USD a month subscription. Also a 15 day credit card unlocked trial. That's it.

[Crator]

If SOE has a good anti-cheat program, which they said they did get one for PS2, we don't have to worry about free trials and hackers anymore. So I say go for the free trials (reserves) path. Limit the BR and training points. I also like the idea posed above about being able to buy play time by the hour. Also, if an offer from SOE came that gave sub for life for $200 in the first few weeks, month of the game, I would defiantly buy it. They probably wouldn't offer something like that for a very long time because they got to make money.

[NlightN]

OPer, plz see this (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37024) recent thread about the ideal payment plan.


.....in which the consensus basicly ended up as PS2 should have a F2P model with the option for a premium sub, with premium benefits. Though whether there should be a boxed copy or not is still debatable.

[SavageB]

A subscription will kill this game. Unless it's preposterously cheap, at which point, you're better off just doing a cash shop of some sort.

If there's a perception that "playing PS2 is cool, but I can't afford a subscription and game X is good enough and doesn't have a bill attached," PS2 loses population the same way PS1 did.

Cant say I agree with you at all on the sub part. PS1 had subs and did fine in its prime, people didint mind paying the 15/month for hours and hours of entertainment.

[Redshift]

Maybe, but it is also a good way to bring money in fast when the game is released. They could do it as a special action where you could get a life time subscription in the first week/month the game is released. and after that you can't buy it anymore. If something like that would come i would probably buy it depending on the price. It it is something like 200 i wouldn't do it. But if it is around 100 i probably will. They also already have a 3 year plan for the game so i don't suppose they will kill of the game after a year.

Thats precisly the point, if you assume they want to run the game for exactly 3 years then your £100 lifetime membership covers about a years worth of normal membership, i.e each liftime membership looses them 2/3rds of their revenue, and it only gets worse the longer the game lasts for.
Lifetime memberships are offered by companies who expect the game to fail since thats the only situation it is advantageous to the company

[Sirisian]

Edited. Newer version in a later post.

[zuesrocks]

no free to play

[Sirisian]

Okay random thought after reading through this. A few people brought up purchasable time. How did the people that mentioned it think that would work? The game has off-line training meaning it requires a fixed time to train skills. If someone purchases 100 hours of play-time are they allowed to train skills for 100 hours? When are those skills trained? Only when they are playing the game or can they sign in for an hour and then train skills for 100 hours and play for 99 hours with those unlocked skills?

[Bags]

You forgot me :<

[Sirisian]

You forgot me :<
One moment. I have to include all the data from this (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36477) thread on business models.

[Bags]

For the record I agree with Leff.

[Vecha]

And...what about the EVE skill progression system?

[Senyu]

I dont mind paying flat rate 15 a month. Their delivering massive scale combat with now RPG elements in the sense you can spend a year speccing into a single tank. And personally I think the 15 a month is better overall in terms of the game will receive constant support, more incentive to release more content then geting your funding from a cash shop. Its just a safer and more secure model with less douches that troll the F2P games.

But i cant speak for others.

[Nephilimuk]

Subscription same model as EVE online with the promise of free upgrades to the game.

Pay for vanity items only and game time if economy exists (this puts a value on game time though which introduces RTMT)

F2P with level cap and learning limitations for a fixed period of time (trial). If the populations drop then think of implementing a f2p program but with a capped account.

In all honesty this is up to SOE they have already done the business model or the game would not be going ahead. I understand why a lot of people want f2p but you have to ask will it support ongoing development and if so at what cost to you the player. Nothing is ever free and the shine will soon drop if you have to pay in micro transactions for everything or are stuck with a game in stasis.

[Bags]

And...what about the EVE skill progression system?

BR caps how much you can unlock.

[Gandhi]

I'd rather see a $10 a month subscription, but I'll wait until I see their F2P model before I pass judgement on that. I hope it's not banal like "Today's deal: Sweet racing stripes for your Vanguard! Only $2.50!"

[exLupo]

FIREk
Free to play 50% less experience, Subscription maybe a discount on vanity items

There is a substantial psychological difference in 100% more xp and 50% less. It sets the freep as the baseline and anyone who pays not only is moving faster than the rest, they're a higher class of player. Just a phrasing thing that prints money. :)

Overall, I'm liking Malorn's take. However, I was also thinking that you have various limits like specialist roles, resource cap and specific mods that are only available to subscribers -or- to those who pay a one-time fee to unlock them. Whatever way it goes, the freep or freep+ (paid for box or something in store but isn't a subscriber) should be presented as the status quo and anyone who pays is a "valued customer" aka "better".

A robust hacking detecting/deterrent model would help with the freeps and, while it will attract more pricks, it'll attract more of every type of player. As we've all seen, paying a sub doesn't stop game communities from being total trash. What I'd like to see is SOE actually reporting abusive players (banned and have evidence of ban avoidance, etc.) to their respective ISP's abuse department. It's a rare AUP that doesn't count that kind of tomfoolery as a service violation and reason for account action.

Little known fact: Abuse agents are universally vindictive and, sometimes, even worshipers of Nemesis. They love little more than breaking their routine and burning down some chump who thinks he can crap all over some random forum, irc channel or game.

[Aractain]

Some of you are actually proposeing having box + sub + extra micros? WTF? Secret world is doing this and theres no way in hell Im paying those tight arses there little cash grab (you know it will go free 2 play when the box sales and subs dry up).

In PS2 people are content. We need the model which gives us maximum people.
Box + choice of f2p or sub. "Freemeium" its called? (badly spelled but still). There cannot be an enforced sub or we will lose out on so many extra players who make this game worth playing.

[exLupo]

There cannot be an enforced sub or we will lose out on so many extra players who make this game worth playing.

While, ultimately, this is true, the debate is on whether or not the players who play f2p and freemium games are worth playing with. As more and more games turn and launch freemium, your "cash grab" opinion will only be more common but, at least today, we're still on the "new game = subscription" line of that progression; the community quality discussion is one worth having.

[CutterJohn]

I'd prefer not seeing a subscription, since when I inevitably tire of the game enough, I'll drop the sub, and be completely unable to play unless I resub for a month.

I have no issues with microtransaction supported gameplay. You still get to play if you're not willing to pay, even if you are disadvantaged. With a sub you just don't get to play, period.

[Aractain]

One thing I have learned is that the amount you pay has no effect on making a community "better". The best communitys are in games where you are encoruaged to work together and like each other. As long as they arn't cheaters or big greifers/abuse merchants I want them in the game. I don't even care if they suck or if they are donkeys.

[Bruttal]

Yeah i think id rather pay for the hours i play then per month. because i switch back and forth between games that i play all the time and buying few hours here and there or a large amount for a longer time would be nice. Also would keep people from afking for hours at a time loged in ;)

[basti]

Reserves, means you played for free but couldn't go above br6, worked fine in planetside. Do it, best way to do things actually.
And hacking wont be an issue with active gms and proper anti cheat measures. After all, it was no issue during the reserves year.

[Redshift]

Okay random thought after reading through this. A few people brought up purchasable time. How did the people that mentioned it think that would work? The game has off-line training meaning it requires a fixed time to train skills. If someone purchases 100 hours of play-time are they allowed to train skills for 100 hours? When are those skills trained? Only when they are playing the game or can they sign in for an hour and then train skills for 100 hours and play for 99 hours with those unlocked skills?

offline training is irrelevent tbh, when you buy game time you're buying time connected to the server, the offline thing has a limit to it they said you need to log in once a day to queue stuff up. It's not like you can cheat the system and raise a char to max for zero money, you'd still need to play the char to get the br up and thus spend time connected

[Miir]

First I should say I'm not really against any type of payment idea. I like Dvidd's ideas.

What bothered me with the original Planetside was the fact that I didn't feel my money was going to good use. Back in 2003 everyone was coming from traditional MMO's where there was tons of content and you felt like you were getting a good value for your monthly fee. Then Planetside comes out and you payed a monthly fee for almost no content.

I'd rather pay for the box, pay for DLC or expansions then maybe have a minimum monthly fee something like 5 dollars a month. You can't compare this to a RPG type MMO so you shouldn't have to pay 15 dollars a month for it.

Preferably no monthly fee.

[Logit]

First I should say I'm not really against any type of payment idea. I like Dvidd's ideas.

What bothered me with the original Planetside was the fact that I didn't feel my money was going to good use. Back in 2003 everyone was coming from traditional MMO's where there was tons of content and you felt like you were getting a good value for your monthly fee. Then Planetside comes out and you payed a monthly fee for almost no content.

I'd rather pay for the box, pay for DLC or expansions then maybe have a minimum monthly fee something like 5 dollars a month. You can't compare this to a RPG type MMO so you shouldn't have to pay 15 dollars a month for it.

Preferably no monthly fee.

As much as I remain skeptical of SOEs capacity to not let this game fail due to neglect. In theory, the money should be going to this "3 year plan" they keep talking about.

The game is going to be a lot more in depth and keeping people interested this time around should be a top priority of theirs.

As much as we all do it, we can't compare the sequel to the original because minus the essentials they really won't have a whole hell of a lot in common.

[Malorn]

I like to see...

1) Free-to-play. Some content may be restricted (certain classes/certs like commanders, outfit creation, cannot send /tells, etc). No limits on battle rank or anything that restricts the ability to play on any continent or battle. F2P players should be able to enjoy like 99% of PS2, within the reasonable restrictions outlined above which is mainly there to prevent spammers, hackers, abuse of communication, etc.

2) Premium. For those who pay some amount of money for digital goods, be it buying a boxed version of the game, etc. These accounts have a few more privileges than free-to-play. Can make one-time payments to unlock some stuff, but not everything.

3) VIP. Subscription-based, all content unlocked. Accelerated training/xp gain.


The above is tried-and-true successful F2P model. I think it would work great for PS2. No need to have trials or other stuff like that. Instead they can do specials/sales where certain goods are cheaper for a short period of time, enticements for people to get their friends to play, etc.

[Bags]

Can we stop using the word "premium"? It doesn't have the greatest connotation. Reminds me of GunZ where "premium" items meant you had way more health and damage than everyone.

[Crator]

It's just a word...

[Senyu]

If they choose the 15/month subscription........



....you'll still play it.......

[Bags]

And words have connotations.

[basti]

It's just a word...

"Classes" is also just a word. Yet everyone thinks that it means that your character can be just one class, and that they fill roles like Tank, Healer, DPS etc...

[Bags]

I want to play a Priest.

[Infektion]

Nay,

WARRIOR PRIEST!

R40 - Rell Hell :: closed beta to early year after WAR. RIP

[Chaff]

:cheers:I like to see...

1) Free-to-play. Some content may be restricted (certain classes/certs like commanders, outfit creation, cannot send /tells, etc). No limits on battle rank or anything that restricts the ability to play on any continent or battle. F2P players should be able to enjoy like 99% of PS2, within the reasonable restrictions outlined above which is mainly there to prevent spammers, hackers, abuse of communication, etc.

2) Premium. For those who pay some amount of money for digital goods, be it buying a boxed version of the game, etc. These accounts have a few more privileges than free-to-play. Can make one-time payments to unlock some stuff, but not everything.

3) VIP. Subscription-based, all content unlocked. Accelerated training/xp gain.


The above is tried-and-true successful F2P model. I think it would work great for PS2. No need to have trials or other stuff like that. Instead they can do specials/sales where certain goods are cheaper for a short period of time, enticements for people to get their friends to play, etc.


Pretty much my feelings. I think the VIP should shoot for the $5/mo ballpark.

Ideally, F2P willl help keep the Pop high. Can't be a MMO without massive Pop.

[Accuser]

Despite being a big PS fan and being able to afford it, I'm not sure I'd pay for a game where I could succeed in F2P as easily as I could with purchase+sub.

I like the Champions Online system, which creates a very linear class progression for F2P players but freeform ability selection for subs. While PS2 subs would still be limited to classes, F2P characters would only unlock key components of their class over time but still end up inferior to a subs character at max rank.

It would also help motivate me to subscribe if subs were awarded some micro-transactions credit for free with every month.

[Crator]

I'm not sure I'd pay for a game where I could succeed in F2P as easily as I could with purchase+sub.

I would hope most people feel the same way. I also don't see how it would be beneficial to any company running a MMO to do something like this.

[Sirisian]

FIREk
Free to play 50% less experience, Subscription maybe a discount on vanity items
There is a substantial psychological difference in 100% more xp and 50% less. It sets the freep as the baseline and anyone who pays not only is moving faster than the rest, they're a higher class of player. Just a phrasing thing that prints money. :)
Yeah I removed that wording so people could see the underlying proposals cleanly.

There appears to be a large proportion of people that want a F2P aspect. People have proposed experience penalties and BR caps along with training speed reductions. (None of these suggestions are bundled per say. Just ideas people had to separate F2P players from subscription).

Then you have CutterJohn and maybe others (it's hard to tell) that support pay to win. I'm not sure if he's playing devil's advocate in doing so. However, I'm also not sure if he's describing a pay to win to go along with subscription or one where you have a subscription and you get access to everything and only F2P people use the cash shop to buy pieces of the subscription system or it's simply pay to win where you buy a class/weapon/vehicle for a month.

offline training is irrelevent tbh, when you buy game time you're buying time connected to the server, the offline thing has a limit to it they said you need to log in once a day to queue stuff up. It's not like you can cheat the system and raise a char to max for zero money, you'd still need to play the char to get the br up and thus spend time connected
You only need to log into the on-line system or an app to change or set upgrades. I doubt such a system would cost "play-time minutes". I still don't see how much a system could be feasible. At least with F2P you can define a limit like "if you don't have a subscription your training goes at half-speed" or something. With a play-time you're like a subscription player so you should have full-training, but the training time isn't fixed. I guess the best way I could think of would be when you purchase time the training starts separate from the play-time and begins training for X time you've purchased. However, that would gimp a person that's only playing for a few hours a week since they're training time doesn't correspond to the amount they've paid for. Meaning if they bought 100 hours then training would stop after 4 days. Unless a weight was used that where you buy play-time and you get a multiplied amount of training time.

Or the other solution is that training for all characters no matter much goes at a constant rate without a subscription so F2P, Subscription, and purchased time players all train based on their character creation date and not in relation to their subscription times, but that sounds like a non-profitable solution. I mean BR stops person from training, but for a F2P person without a BR cap, which a few people suggested, they'd have everything if they just play enough.

Also the problem was already brought up that if a BR cap is used then what happens when a previous subscription player logs on to play. Are all their higher BR certs locked? That would be the intuitive choice.

Right now I'm very skeptical about the purchased time concept and the F2P with no BR. I'm ignoring the people that want to turn this into guild wars where you buy the box and then buy optional or mandatory DLC/expansions. Any insights on the no BR system other than the limited experience/training speed? I mean it sounds like a nice system until someone stops caring about BR/experience.

[Aractain]

What do you class as pay to win? For me they only thing that is pay to win is being able to buy simply better weapons than are avaliable otherwise and extra health/armour etc.

If its just different weapons or even an entire class of weponary its not P2W because you are not anymore powerful than a free player.

Also buying "play time" is a bad system because every minuey you spend in the game you feel like you need to make the most out of your time (OMG NEVER GO AFK!).
This is similar to the flaw of the sub - you might not log on for a month or two but you still have to pay.

Right now I see people dismiss second teir sub games more than they dismiss f2p (and the f2p ones only do it because of the "perception" of bad F2Ps).


GW2 is going to have cosmetic stuff in their cash shop btw.

[Redshift]

(OMG NEVER GO AFK!).


log off if you're going afk for any meaningful amount of time, you know to free up space on the cont so you're not a drain to your empire?

You only need to log into the on-line system or an app to change or set upgrades. I doubt such a system would cost "play-time minutes". I still don't see how much a system could be feasible.
.....


Offline training is still irrelevent, it only lets you queue up skills you still need to play the game to unlock BR to unlock the skills

i suppose you could level a char to max and then offline train everything up for very little money, but in that scenario you can't play the game for a year while thats happening. If it's just about leveling an alt it would be faster doing it as an alt on your main account that is playing.

[zuesrocks]

If they choose the 15/month subscription........



....you'll still play it.......


it will be 15/month subscription

[Crator]

Also buying "play time" is a bad system because every minuey you spend in the game you feel like you need to make the most out of your time (OMG NEVER GO AFK!).
This is similar to the flaw of the sub - you might not log on for a month or two but you still have to pay.

It's just an option that some people may want to use.

[Aaron]

One-time payment sounds attractive. I don't want to worry about periodical payments.

[Redshift]

One-time payment sounds attractive. I don't want to worry about periodical payments.

Lifetime sub won't happen, i explained why earlier

[Sirisian]

i suppose you could level a char to max and then offline train everything up for very little money, but in that scenario you can't play the game for a year while thats happening. If it's just about leveling an alt it would be faster doing it as an alt on your main account that is playing.
Yeah that's more what I was talking about. This skews the F2P system for people that don't want a cap since they could train at the same speed as a subscription player. Or would they first need to purchase time to unlock the normal training speed?

I'd be curious if Higby would mention if you could train without having a subscription and if so at what rate.

[Chaff]

.
$15/mo for ONE game is too much. SOE needs to step back and recognize the tipping point. They need to focus on attracting, and then maintaining a substantial Pop.

The monthy rate needs to be closer to $5 than $15. If they price the Pop down - the game is doomed to fail. If the price allows for a large Pop - then the game is more likely to sustain itself - and hence the larger membership.

They can farm membership/subscriptions for money. They need a bigger herd - at the $5-per-head range vs. a small herd at $15-per-head.

Besides flaws in the game, subsciptions fell is PS1 because long-term the game was not worth $15/mo. Maybe in the beginning. As the game and the player get used to each other, it takes less for a player to get turned off.
.

[Bags]

$15/mo for ONE game is too much. SOE needs to step back and recognize the tipping point. They need to focus on attracting, and then maintaining a substantial Pop.

$15/mo is the standard subscription for ONE game. :rolleyes:

[Crator]

$15/mo is the standard subscription for ONE game. :rolleyes:

And those games usually have continued new development throughout the life of the game.

[Bags]

And those games usually have continued new development throughout the life of the game.

Are you saying PS2 won't? Link to such information.

[Crator]

^^^ Not saying that at all. Just bitter because PS1 was like that.

[Bags]

^^^ Not saying that at all. Just bitter because PS1 was like that.

Indeed. Sony should have been paying us to play.

Anyone else find it funny that Chaff, whom is dropping $3k into a new rig, is squeamish about paying $15/mo for planetside? :p:groovy:

[Chaff]

I think it's FUNNY.

Yet, it makes sense to me. Hey, I've paid it (for years), and will do so again. I can afford it. But I'm not so shallow or vain that I only see things from just MY perspective. For gamers that like to play multiple titles keeping multiple subsciptions at $15 ea seems like it'd start to be an impact on ones finances - especially a student. In which case, keeping subscriptions at $15/mo may help younger folk protect themselves from their gaming addiction tendencies.

So $15 is the norm. Big whoop. IMHO that's a tad high. Then again, if you focus on one game, it's barely more than one movie ticket. In that light, it seems like a bargain.

My main thought on lowering sub rates was to attract MORE players - NOT cuz I'm "squeemish"" about $15. I'd like to see MORE people be able to afford to keep their subs going - even if they cut back or stop playing any give MMO for dif periods of time.
.

[Bags]

I'd love a cheaper sub but is it feasible? Not sure, I don't work at these companies.

Regardless, they will have some sort of F2P option and I'm sure they realize how important having a lot of bodies is.

[NlightN]

I think it's FUNNY.

Yet, it makes sense to me. Hey, I've paid it (for years), and will do so again. I can afford it. But I'm not so shallow or vain that I only see things from just MY perspective. For gamers that like to play multiple titles keeping multiple subsciptions at $15 ea seems like it'd start to be an impact on ones finances - especially a student. In which case, keeping subscriptions at $15/mo may help younger folk protect themselves from their gaming addiction tendencies.

So $15 is the norm. Big whoop. IMHO that's a tad high. Then again, if you focus on one game, it's barely more than one movie ticket. In that light, it seems like a bargain.

My main thought on lowering sub rates was to attract MORE players - NOT cuz I'm "squeemish"" about $15. I'd like to see MORE people be able to afford to keep their subs going - even if they cut back or stop playing any give MMO for dif periods of time.
.


^^ this

It's not about what WE the dedicated crowd are willing to pay, its about attracting or more importantly sustaining a playerbase high enough to maintain battles with thousands of players.

The thing about PS2 is that as an FPS, it will also be competing against non-sub FPSs. At that premium and following the release of BFBC4 or whatever, you'll get many players saying "well why should I sub to this cow, when the milk from this cow is free, even if it is a little less dense."

[Bags]

^^ this

It's not about what WE the dedicated crowd are willing to pay, its about attracting or more importantly sustaining a playerbase high enough to maintain battles with thousands of players.

The thing about PS2 is that as an FPS, it will also be competing against non-sub FPSs. At that premium and following the release of BFBC4 or whatever, you'll get many players saying "well why should I sub to this cow, when the milk from this cow is free, even if it is a little less dense."

Well they certainly aren't doing themselves any favors by making combat a carbon copy of BF.

Regardless, you guys are completely ignoring the fact that there will be a F2P option of some sort.

So if there is a sub option it will be $15/mo.

[NlightN]

That was in response to the ppl saying it will be and should be the static $15/mo premium.

As an option to a F2P inclusive model though, its a non-issue.

[Senyu]

My conerns for the F2P model is...


-Low Funding for the game to continue and develop

-Lack of support because its F2P (Not always but generally more so)

-Unfair "Buy-to-Win" options

-No cover charge means all the riff raff can come in (trolls, douches, etc...)

[Bags]

My conerns for the F2P model is...


-Low Funding for the game to continue and develop



Look at League of Legends. F2P makes a killing if the game is near halfway decent.

[Graywolves]

Look at League of Legends. F2P makes a killing if the game is near halfway decent.

I don't know much about making games but I think Planetside requires a little more money for maintenance than LoL.

[Bags]

I don't know much about making games but I think Planetside requires a little more money for maintenance than LoL.

Why so?

[Senyu]

LoL has a ridicoulous player base. They must have a huge amount of servers to keep that shit running. Sheer volume of use I think is what makes it costly. But Planetside which I don't think at first it will reach LoLs player numbers (hope it does tho) I can see PS having more complex in game things it has to calculate in addition to other things.


I have no experince but from what little I know, I imagine PS2 would work harder over the servers while LoL has just so many workers.

Anyone with actually technical knowledge mind explaining?

[Lokster]

If they make this "Free to Play" I probably won't even play it. Free to play brings hackers in masses. I realize SOE has a grand plan to deal with hackers .. but I assure you, hackers will figure out a way to hack any game and they always gravitate toward free to play games.

If it's strictly free to play, it will be full of hackers. Free to play would be fine AFTER an initial purchase of say $50-60 -- but that would force the need for micro transactions .. as somebody has to pay for the ongoing server fees/maintenance.

Just follow suit with every other MMO and make it subscription based. That's my vote, as I am completely against strictly F2P -- and not a big fan of micros.

[Aractain]

Just follow suit with every other MMO and make it subscription based.

I think you should go look at the land scape of sub only MMOs (hint: WoW and its compeitors and a few terribad ones which will go full F2P soon IMO).

Also name an action MMO that is subbased (cos I don't know of one and no Planetside 1 dosn't count, nethier does WWII online which has even less players than PS1).

[Mirror]

I dont like the free 2 play model but if it was put into PS 2 I would hope that the people on free 2 play would only be able to access a cont similar to Nexus (1 base, very small and provides no benefit at all). Players who pay a monthly sub would be able to go there and help new players etc.

If the people on the free 2 play model like it then they sub the game and get access to the rest of the BRs/CRs etc and the rest of the conts.

This would also stop most hackers as they would be stuck on the small cont that provides no benefits and if any subscription players are there when a hacker is ruining the game they can leave and go to the other fight where the hacker cant ruin it.

[Crator]

If they make this "Free to Play" I probably won't even play it. Free to play brings hackers in masses. I realize SOE has a grand plan to deal with hackers .. but I assure you, hackers will figure out a way to hack any game and they always gravitate toward free to play games.

If it's strictly free to play, it will be full of hackers. Free to play would be fine AFTER an initial purchase of say $50-60 -- but that would force the need for micro transactions .. as somebody has to pay for the ongoing server fees/maintenance.

Just follow suit with every other MMO and make it subscription based. That's my vote, as I am completely against strictly F2P -- and not a big fan of micros.

Don't BS us. If it's F2P why wouldn't you at least, try it. I know you will.
Sure, that's why BF2, BF2142, etc. are totally F2P and failed b/c they are full of hackers.

[Sirisian]

Sure, that's why BF2, BF2142, etc. are totally F2P and failed b/c they are full of hackers.
Kind of an odd comparison. Those games failed because they were boring after a week of playing. Pointing out examples that failed for other reasons doesn't mean it'll make them work in the long run as F2P.

[Crator]

Sorry, I was being facetious. I don't think the BF games failed.

[Sirisian]

Sorry, I was being facetious. I don't think the BF games failed.
:lol:

[Lokster]

Sure, that's why BF2, BF2142, etc. are totally F2P and failed b/c they are full of hackers.

They aren't "totally" F2P. All those games cost about $50 for the initial purchase. If you actually read my post you would see I would be in favor of "F2P" if it had an initial box purchase of $50-60.

I would just be more in favor of a subscription based pricing model, as I'm not a huge fan of micro-purchases.

Thanks for not actually reading posts before you reply though. :rolleyes:

BTW, "F2P" games are titles such as, TF2, APB:R, Warrock, etc; A game which costs a player NOTHING, hence "free" (they usually support micro purchases too). I realize those are all 1st and 3rd person shooters. That's the only important genre to look at, as there are not many hackers/exploiters in rpgmmo's that actually effect gameplay.

Play a game like RPB:R for five minutes and you can see why F2P for a shooter is a horrible idea. Hackers are more popular than legit players; which is my only concearn with F2P.

[Crator]

Stop nit-picking. I was referring to subscription F2P. That's the core of the issue really anyways. Not initial purchases. The issue is people aren't used to/willing to pay for subscription based models for FPS games.

[Lokster]

Stop nit-picking. I was referring to subscription F2P. That's the core of the issue really anyways. Not initial purchases. The issue is people aren't used to/willing to pay for subscription based models for FPS games.

Depends on who's issue you are referring to. If people would simply stop referring to the preferred model as "F2P", it would stop confusing people like myself. A $50 game IS NOT and NEVER WILL BE considered "F2P" as it's not free. Pretty straight forward.

Again, my support goes to either:

(1) No subscription costs after initial purchases. This means micro purchases will be supported.
(2) *preferred* Monthly subscription. As I am not a big fan of micro purchases and "pay 2 win" weapons/tools/etc.

[Crator]

I agree to this:

1) Trial - Allow someone to try the game out for free, no purchase necessary. The trial is time based and will only allow you to play for a week or so... Same restrictions that apply to F2P players apply to trials players too. After trial is up you must purchase the game at the retails price.

2) Subscription:

a) Free-to-Play: Limit BR (no CR allowed), Limit certain certs/weapons from being used but make sure you show the player in-game that they must purchase a paid sub. plan to use this stuff.

b) Monthly subscription: Player can do anything/everything they want in-game.

3) Micro-Transactions: Not sure what to say about these since there's no enough info. They did say they would be doing stuff with this though. I would also assume micros would be for everyone, not just non-paying subs.

[TerminatorUK]

I think a retail box/key should be needed initially (to reduce hacker potential), however on-going support could be:

1) No (or very small) sub + cash shop + in-game advertising (not a massive fan of it)

2) Normal sub but with the option to purchase as non-contigous 'hours'. The hours could be used at any time and only count down whilst actually playing the game. This would help less frequent players still to sub.

[Crator]

Wish people would drop the hacker issues. They have an anti-hacker program incorporated into PS2 now.

[Accuser]

Wish people would drop the hacker issues. They have an anti-hacker program incorporated into PS2 now.

So after 24 hours of successfully hacking on my F2P account I get caught and my account closed. I start a new account and get right back at it. Hacking takes a HUGE toll on F2P because there is no real harm in being caught.

If they do go with the League of Legends F2P/Freemium model, we can expect either some intense anti-hacking measures or another very low-class F2P shooter that happens to have a lot of players.

[Crator]

TBH, I don't know much about anti-hacking programs and what they are capable of/what can be exploited. I'd like to know more though. I'd also like to know more info on what SOE is using so we don't keep throwing mud around the forums about it.

[NewSith]

Buy 2 play for the win. 30 or even 40 bucks per ban would do very nicely against hackers.

[Crator]

Initial buy-2-play with free-2-play subscription. Ban the serial code given after buying the game, not the player. Good idea actually.

[duck]

Quick question regarding F2p scheme. Does this mean you have to purchase the game, and there is no subscription fee? Or is it 100% free, you dont need to spend a cent on it to play it?
I smell an invasion of hackers, spammers, and griefers...

[NewSith]

Quick question regarding F2p scheme. Does this mean you have to purchase the game, and there is no subscription fee? Or is it 100% free, you dont need to spend a cent on it to play it?
I smell an invasion of hackers, spammers, and griefers...

Your nose doesn't fail you.

[Redshift]

i'd be up for an initial purchase price with confirmed hackers having serials banned

[duck]

i'd be up for an initial purchase price with confirmed hackers having serials banned

This.

I can't think of another way of permanently banning hackers. You can IP ban them but a lot of them can just change it. Make the game cost $30-$40, and the serial key will be linked to your SOE account. If you screw around, your serial key will be banned and you can only get a new one if you buy a new game.

[Accuser]

Quick question regarding F2p scheme. Does this mean you have to purchase the game, and there is no subscription fee? Or is it 100% free, you dont need to spend a cent on it to play it?
I smell an invasion of hackers, spammers, and griefers...

The LoL payment system Smedley referenced is completely free, with optional subscription and/or microtransactions. If they try that in a purely PvP game, I expect a constant stream of hackers one-shotting people, getting caught, making new accounts, and doing it again.

What's sad is that there are a LOT of F2P FPS games out there that make decent money while being a hacker paradise. I truly hope they go for a Buy to Play model, even if it's only a one-time cost of $10 with microtransactions and optional subscription.

[kaffis]

Proof? PS1 didn't die because it had subs.
____________________
Wow Leff, I never thought I'd agree with you on anything. That's pretty much exactly what I came up with when I thought about it.
Was PS better populated 1-2 months after release, or a year after release?

That's what I mean. Planetside 2 will sustain players much better without a subscription model. Sustaining players is a big deal in a PvP only game.

[Sirisian]

Updated list of preferences which now includes every forum poster's opinion. :) (If you feel you were misplaced or misquoted speak up. This isn't set in stone. So if you prefer F2P now or something else just say so). Also if you're curious why I reposted this it's because I still feel strongly about subscription only, but I'll explain that at the bottom.

NlightN ($5), basti, Jennyboo, Huma, Avirau ($10), SavageB ($15), Kouza ($15), Zulthus ($15), Senyu ($15?), Sirisian ($10-$15), PSxCarebear, Nephilimuk, zuesrocks, 321, NCLynx, KornDemon, Nobel, Skorne, Dreamcast, DeeTwoEh, Rarntogo, Aaron, Lokster, Mirror, Aaron, HtSgtMAD ($15) (26 people)
Buy Boxed Copy with 1 month free + Subscription + Microtransaction store for aesthetic items
Leaning toward $10 USD subscription.

Gimpylung, exLupo, kaffis, dachlatte, artifice, Wakken, Volw (though he seems to like pay to win?), Redshift (7 people)
Buy boxed copy, F2P, Microtransactions for aesthetic items. Guild Wars system.

Raymac, Heaven, Logit, bjorntju1, 2coolforu, Lunarchild (6 people)
Buy box copy, F2P BR limit, Subscription also.

Aractain, Krowe
Buy Boxed Copy, free-to-play with support for micros. Pay for content packs (new vehicles, guns etc). New maps are always free to keep people playing together

NewSith
Buy Boxed Copy, Subscription, F2P (2/3 XP), Microtransactions for aesthetic items

EASyEightyEight (Lower queue priority)
Buy Boxed Copy, F2P slow training, Subscription

MasterChief096
Buy Boxed Copy, F2P BR limit, Subscription ($5-$10), Purchaseable time, Microtransaction store for aesthetic items

Accuser
Buy Boxed Copy, F2P or Subscription

Malorn, Chaff
Buy box copy, F2P slow training and experience and low queue priority, "Premium account" for people that have ever purchased aesthetic items and get experience and training bonuses less than subscription accounts and medium queue priority. Subscription account increased resource pool, credits to buy vanity items

FIREk
F2P 1/2 XP, Subscription maybe a discount on vanity items, Microtransaction store for aesthetics and maybe customization items to weapon scopes/silencers, normally unavailable in the game with little benefit

ECM, Uberculosis, moosepoop
F2P or Subscription

BorisBlade
F2P slow XP training, Subscription full speed training/leveling

Hamma
F2P

Crator
F2P, Subscription, Microtransactions for aesthetics

Graywolves
F2P with limitation, less experience, BR cap, or F2P with daily play-time limit

nathanebht
Was subscription ($10-$15), changed his mind to allowing F2P with BR cap

DviddLeff, Bags, Miir
F2P BR limit, Buy box copy higher BR, Subscription, paying for unlimited play-time

SKYeXile
F2P

Bruttal
Purchasing time, Insufficient Input

CutterJohn
F2P or Purchaseable time, Subscription also. Pay to win.

Timmy
Didn't pick a side. Leaning boxed copy + subscription?

Other concepts brought up by the community:
Buying bulk subscriptions for cheaper or paying for unlimited play-time.


p0intman's recent thread (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?p=590689) about selling power hopefully has enlightened some people about F2P. There's going to be a line that SOE will draw where something is "selling power" and you have to hope you're on the right side of it or you're going to be upset. I won't list off any of the things on his list, but if you really like F2P a lot then you have to realize a lot of those things are going to be purchasable. It's not just going to be limited to aesthetics as much as people that was F2P want to believe.

If anything you'll start seeing subtle things like purchasing resources or increasing experience and then be left behind in the skill-tree. SOE will use these reward models to bait players into paying extra for things. The resources point most of all. As a F2P player you might notice you can't purchase a "sidegrade" for a vehicle when you pull them, but others will be able to every time. SOE will play it off since side-grades don't effect combat. Right? You'll notice odd things like it costs 1000 auraxium for a sidegrade you want but you can only get 200 auraxium an hour. You'll also notice mysterious buffs to hard to get sidegrades if people aren't purchasing them. Maybe I'm being paranoid. I think I'll stop there since the other threads have summed up a lot of benefits and flaws of the system along with the recent AGN discussions.

[NewSith]

It's more like:


NewSith
1-time purchase, Premium (XP 1.3-1.5x boost), In-game vanity, Bans based on CD-keys, Steam Store

[Redshift]

you can move me down to the guild wars system tbh, i'd be quite happy with that.

I do think you should have to play something for the game to start with though just to limit hackers, if they really don't like that idea, you could still make it "free" by making it a copy cost £10 or something but crediting each account with £10 of store credit when it's activated

[Crator]

I agree about the hacker comment if that's an issue. It has been said however that they have the means to fight the hackers. I believe em until I see it not work.

[Redshift]

I agree about the hacker comment if that's an issue. It has been said however that they have the means to fight the hackers. I believe em until I see it not work.

depends if it prevents hacking or detects and bans it.

If it just detects and bans there's no point to it unless there's a way to stop them just making another account and jumping back in

[Crator]

Not sure by Smed did say they are using multiple methods to deal with the issue.

[Sirisian]

It's more like:
I reworded it to F2P 2/3 XP to keep things easier to read. Remember if subscription exists it's ideally in the form of "I have a subscription I can't buy anything but aesthetic items from the cash shop since I already have all the perks".

That's how I've been interpreting it at least when people say it since the alternative would force people to have a subscription and continue to use the cash shop for non-vanity items. That would go against what the subscription stands for essentially. So F2P is usually on the level of BR caps or XP/training disadvantages.

[SgtMAD]

I'd pay the same sub amount as I do now,I think you need a sub to help recoup the initial dev costs which I have heard is quite high but then again who the hell knows

[NewSith]

I'd pay the same sub amount as I do now,I think you need a sub to help recoup the initial dev costs which I have heard is quite high but then again who the hell knows

That's when xp boosters step in... The game has the most massive numbers at start and most of these "preliminary" people rush off for xp-boosts. Later, amount of these players is slightly reduced, either because pop drops or characters max out, but to that moment what you called "the initial dev costs" are getting fully covered.

[Lonehunter]

I'm fine with buying the game and paying a monthly fee, some F2P games have some kind of VIP subscription, hell if the game meets my expectations I'd pay $20