DC Universe Changes Pricing Structure (Possible Insight to PS2 Pricing) [Archive]

Crazyduckling

2011-09-19, 06:36 PM

Link Here! (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/09/dc-universe-online-now-a-freemium-game.html)

Starting in October, Sony said it will offer three tiers of the game, a free version with limited features, a premium tier for those who spend a total of $5 or more on virtual items for the game, and a "legendary" tier with access to all the features in the game for $15 a month.

I know there is already a thread somewhere related to this, but I thought that this was an article that could possibly give us insight as to how SOE might go about charging for PS2.

If they don't sell power, I can't imagine what I would want as a subbed player over a micro-transaction player. What sort of features would they lock out of a free version of PS2 that other players have access to while making it fair? Aesthetic customization is the main thing, but is that really enough to warrant a subscription?

No criticism here, just some thoughts.

BorisBlade

2011-09-19, 07:11 PM

One thing to remember, they created DCUO with a sub in mind so it fits well with that model. PS2 is designed knowing ahead of time there will be a cash shop and that it will be the main focus. It wont be the same at all. It may have tiers, or whatever. But mostly you will just buy xp increasers, level cap increasers, training speed increasers, cosmetic items (skins etc), and the area that can cause trouble, "sidegrades". These can be upgrades in some situations so its tricky and they can just use political-jargon to give us bs reasons why its ok and everyone will go along with it. Not sayin its bad, but just need to be careful in that department.

They cant sell things like new conts or new areas tho, those have to be totally free or you split up the player base which doesnt work in a game like this.

The best option that ive seen in a game like this, for me personally, (in addtion to the standard F2P + cash shop model) is a $15 per month sub, that gave you full access to things and X number of dollars a month (in this case Station Cash) to buy things in the cash shop.

NapalmEnima

2011-09-19, 07:13 PM

Things subscribing customers might get:

Preferred access to the test server[s]
Preferred access to locked continents (two paying customers, one freeloader, two paying customers, one...)
Faster offline training rate
A longer offline training list (I hear it's going to be 24 hours. Give the paying customers 48)
Increased rate at which resources are earned
Increased rate at which XP is earned.
Exclusive Content (appearance customization stuff).
First access to all new gear. "This week, only subscribers with the right certs have access to X, next week anyone with the right certs can have X". Where X might be some new scope or sidearm or bikini top or whatever.
X station cash per month to spend on Stuff in the cash shop. If they make this amount the same as the cost of a subscription, I suspect they'd pick up a LOT of subscribers.
+X% to all station cash purchases above what they get via the subscription in the first place.

With all that tacked on, players would fall into two categories: Folks who spend Zero Dollars on PS2, and subscribers (who may spend considerably more above and beyond the X/month price). I doubt there would be much in-between.

Sirisian

2011-09-19, 07:18 PM

"Subscription", "Premium", and "Free" basically. Not sure how it would work in regards to Planetside 2. I mean they're selling essentially upgrades in the PS2 cash shop so it's hard to balance that with a Subscription system. Ideally you want the Subscription system to be 100%. Then premium to be like 50% then Free to be 0% so ideally the cash shop should sell things that let you purchase parts of what the subscription people have access to. These could be things like 100% resources earned instead of the normal 25% and such. Removing weapon and vehicle upgrades and replacing the cash shop with experience, training, and resource bonuses would allow such a system.

FIREk

2011-09-19, 07:23 PM

I wonder if it's "spend $5 in total" or "spend $5 per month". The former doesn't seem to make much sense. Unless, of course, the typical non-subsctiption player is expected to play for a month, drop a few bucks, then leave, after which another one would take his place and, with luck, buy some stuff too.

John Smedley, president of the Sony division that developed DC Universe Online, had hoped that the game's target audience of young, male players would be willing to pay for the game, which cost Sony about $50 million and took more than five years to make.

Incidentally, I think it was stated in an interview that PS2 has cost $50M to date.

So, how could DCUO's new model translate into a potential subscription model for PS2, since SOE isn't afraid of using a phrase like "limited features"? Let's assume that a character in PS2 can have up to BR20.
1) 100% free characters are "Reserves" and can go up to BR10; no restrictions on trained skills, but obviously can't get the high-tier skills, whatever they are; maybe (to prevent trolling for free) they can't train Leadership/Command skills as well, or even (extreme nazi version) can't drive certain vehicles, or even any vehicles at all,
2) players that buy $5 or more worth of stuff will be able to go up to BR20,
3) the Glorious Subscription Master Race can go up to BR20 and enjoy a skill training boost, maybe even a resource gaining boost.

Alternatively, all players can go up to BR20, but
1) free players dont get anything extra, maybe get some Leadership/Command restrictions,
2) $5+/mo players get partial or full bonus skill training speed (+50-100%),
3) the Glorious Subscription Master Race gets full bonus skill training speed (+100%) plus bonus resource gains.

Bags

2011-09-19, 07:32 PM

If they don't sell power, I can't imagine what I would want as a subbed player over a micro-transaction player. What sort of features would they lock out of a free version of PS2 that other players have access to while making it fair? Aesthetic customization is the main thing, but is that really enough to warrant a subscription?

Back when League of Legends first came out of Beta and RIOT seemed like a good company I bought $15 of RIOT Points a month to support them. I ended up using the points to buy skins, but I primarily spent the money to support them making a game I enjoyed. The skins were just an added bonus. I'd be willing to do the same for PS2.

Dunno how many people like me exist, however.

Draep

2011-09-19, 07:34 PM

Nobody has brought up pop locks yet. In instances of pop locks, I imagine a paying player will get priority in the queue over a free player.

Raymac

2011-09-19, 07:41 PM

Let's not get too bogged down in the details here since they are a total unknown.

I think the OP makes a great observation that this basic idea may be the direction they are leaning toward for PS2. Frankly, this is payment structure I hope for since I prefer to keep it simple and pay a monthly subscription, but I still want a F2P option to bring in more players.

FIREk

2011-09-19, 07:45 PM

Dunno how many people like me exist, however.

Me like game. Me appreciate work. Me give monies.

NapalmEnima

2011-09-19, 07:58 PM

Nobody has brought up pop locks yet. In instances of pop locks, I imagine a paying player will get priority in the queue over a free player.

Reading fail. Check my previous post.

SavageB

2011-09-19, 08:19 PM

Back when League of Legends first came out of Beta and RIOT seemed like a good company I bought $15 of RIOT Points a month to support them. I ended up using the points to buy skins, but I primarily spent the money to support them making a game I enjoyed. The skins were just an added bonus. I'd be willing to do the same for PS2.

Dunno how many people like me exist, however.

<---

Draep

2011-09-19, 09:17 PM

Reading fail. Check my previous post.

Nice edit on your post you lying ******

morf

2011-09-19, 09:23 PM

No offline leveling for free accounts seems a likely candidate to me. Or maybe you can only queue up one skill and when that's finished you have to log back in. Possibly faster training speed, or ability to train 2 skills simeultaneously.

Exp bonuses

Resource bonuses

Shorter max/vehicle/orbital strike timer

Shorter respawn timer

Also the dev team has stated that a lot of customization is "side-grades" (I.e. sacrifice damage for accuracy) what if these side grades are available either exclusively in the shop? Alternitavely they could require a grind or a bunch of resources, or skip the grind and buy from the shop.

But when does it get out of hand? They moved from armor to shields. What if they sell a 20 percent increased shield regen?

NapalmEnima

2011-09-19, 10:24 PM

Nice edit on your post you lying ******

Oh enlightened one, whose perfection is untainted by gayness. I, your humble servant beg your forgiveness. In my neverending quest to garner undeserved favor, I have grievously sinned against your glory.

That or I only edited my post to add the bullet points. Ya know... Whichever. Its hard to keep track of all the lying and scheming I do.
:doh:

Draep

2011-09-19, 10:53 PM

Oh enlightened one, whose perfection is untainted by gayness. I, your humble servant beg your forgiveness. In my neverending quest to garner undeserved favor, I have grievously sinned against your glory.

That or I only edited my post to add the bullet points. Ya know... Whichever. Its hard to keep track of all the lying and scheming I do.
:doh:

I just think you tried to pull a fast one and got caught for it. Maybe it would better to be humble and man up.

Hamma

2011-09-19, 10:57 PM

Let's try to be productive.

Back on topic..

Lonehunter

2011-09-19, 10:57 PM

Stop with the drama Draep, and save the stupidity-laced profanity for other forums.

I think Napalm's post exemplifies how a company could sell things to keep the game running but still not technically sell power. They can sell cosmetics, VIP treatment, and less time waiting.

NapalmEnima

2011-09-19, 11:28 PM

A: With apologies to Hamma... Derp: Check the time stamps. My last edit was at 4:17. Your post was at 4:34. Are we done now?

B: There is no B. I'm tapped out.

C: or maybe I'm not. It sounds like the 3 year plan could be modified by votes from the player base. So only let the subscribers vote, or give their votes more weight. That would prevent people from spamming f2p accounts to skew the vote.

Draep

2011-09-19, 11:33 PM

Haha I noticed that after my first post, I was banking that you wouldn't check.

NapalmEnima

2011-09-20, 02:43 AM

Haha I noticed that after my first post, I was banking that you wouldn't check.

And after that you still called for me to be humble and man up?! On what delusional koo koo la la planet is that sort of thing even remotely acceptable?

Wow, what a waste of perfectly good oxygen.

And just to keep this on topic... lets see here... What else could subscribers get that the rank & file wouldn't?

Someone already mentioned a higher BR cap (say 10 for the totally free accounts, 20 for the subscribers).

Ah! A max resource limit in free accounts (precisely enough to buy the most expensive thing available to them for their current BR), that is lifted in the paying accounts. Definitely not selling power, anything that a subscriber could do (in this facet), a f2p player could do too... On many accounts, this might never be an issue. It's more a "bullet point" than anything else... and yet the subscribers would still feel like they were one (more) up on the freebee players. This wouldn't make the subscriber's weapons or vehicles any more powerful, it simply creates a situation where an inattentive freebee player might lose some resources because they were at the cap.

FIREk

2011-09-20, 03:14 AM

No offline leveling for free accounts seems a likely candidate to me.

Doubtful - should offline leveling be disabled for freeloaders, they would just clog up our servers with AFK characters running cheap scripts to make them immune to AFK disconnects. ;)

Shorter max/vehicle/orbital strike timer

Shorter respawn timer

That's pretty close to "selling power". Definitely something that affects gameplay balance, however it can be countered by a freeloader's skill or patience - which is the point of F2P and selling convenience. Longer respawn/equipment/stuff timers don't count for squat if the freeloader doesn't get killed, or doesn't care. ;)

A max resource limit in free accounts (precisely enough to buy the most expensive thing available to them for their current BR), that is lifted in the paying accounts.

This would go in line with the limitations imposed on free accounts in DCUO.

Also, if there are are favorites slots for classes and loadouts, freeloaders could have less, or none at all (BFBC2 doesn't have favs, for instance, and it works;)).

There's definitely a lot of stuff that could be optional without breaking gameplay or gimping max BR.

Der Baron

2011-09-20, 11:15 AM

Nice edit on your post you lying ******

Not that I'd want to fuel the flame war, but that sudden burst of vulgarity out of effin nowhere really made me lol.
/clap

On Topic:
As previously said, PS2 is already beeing built with a f2p-model in mind, so I doubt it'll look exactly like that. Nonetheless, it is still interesting and proves that, apparently, you can combine such different payment schemes. We shall see.

TacosWLove

2011-09-20, 11:47 AM

That's pretty close to "selling power". Definitely something that affects gameplay balance, however it can be countered by a freeloader's skill or patience - which is the point of F2P and selling convenience. Longer respawn/equipment/stuff timers don't count for squat if the freeloader doesn't get killed, or doesn't care. ;)

Its close, but I would agree it can be countered and yes its really selling convenience. I think things like this we should expect, it certainly would make a premium sub much more attractive, that coupled with the faster offline training, and it wouldn't have any more power(excluding skills) then someone who didnt pay extra. I could handle this...

ThGlump

2011-09-20, 01:48 PM

I know what i want as a bonus for subscribed players. Since they plan to have multiple servers on launch i would like to have one as a "subscribers only" to get rid of that bad side of F2P - increased level of hackers, grievers and trolls since there is almost no fear in losing account (thats even worse part of F2P than selling power)
I know yor main objection - you want to play with friends who dont want to subscribe. Each subscriber would have few (3-5) invites to invite friend F2P account (valid as long you are subscribed).

I will happily pay monthly fee to play in cleaner game/community.

Talek Krell

2011-09-20, 03:06 PM

Splitting the community along any line is always a risk, but if those problems do manifest than that might be a reasonable way to do it. Perhaps have each invite represented as a code that could be passed around the internet.

Senyu

2011-09-20, 03:27 PM

Again its buying power. Pay 5 dollers or 15 monthly to get things others cant.

FIREk

2011-09-20, 03:38 PM

Again its buying power. Pay 5 dollers or 15 monthly to get things others cant.

Oh my! Things cost monies! Why?!

Raymac

2011-09-20, 04:51 PM

Oh my! Things cost monies! Why?!

Don't get sucked into trying to discuss with the "selling anything other than cosmetics is selling power" faction. They just have a wide ranging definition of "power" and are philosophically against f2p. (just look at any of the number of threads about it)

You'd have better luck trying to convince Sarah Palin to be pro-choice. It's a waste of time.

FIREk

2011-09-20, 05:00 PM

I know, I should've know better. It's just that suddenly, after reading that post, my chest grew an extra hand and it smacked me palm-first on the face. That made me kind of irrational. :P

Sirisian

2011-09-20, 05:01 PM

Oh my! Things cost monies! Why?!
Don't get sucked into trying to discuss with the "selling anything other than cosmetics is not selling power" faction. They just have a narrow definition of "power" and are philosophically for f2p. (just look at any of the number of threads about it)

You'd have better luck trying to convince Sarah Palin to be pro-choice. It's a waste of time.
http://sirisian.com/pictures/iseewhatyoudidthere.png

Raymac

2011-09-20, 05:05 PM

Cute

Graywolves

2011-09-20, 05:31 PM

All the power-sell arguements make me want them to sell power.....Because I'm honestly just starting to feel that people are more concerned about spending money than the actual gameplay or business model.

Especially when they're obviously ignoring the development team since they make their intentions very clear every time they bring it up.

Raymac

2011-09-20, 05:56 PM

Plus, it's just a reality they are going to have to deal with, not just for PS2, but for MMOs in general. This article explains why:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-09-15-money-from-mmo-subs-begins-to-decline

I'd like to keep things simple and just pay a subscription myself, but the industry to evolving.

Crator

2011-09-20, 08:00 PM

Here's another really good article on the subject: Most MMOs fail? (http://news.mmosite.com/content/2008-02-17/20080217224802303,1.shtml)

Sirisian

2011-09-20, 08:40 PM

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-09-15-money-from-mmo-subs-begins-to-decline
That trend is falsely attributed. The fact of the matter is the MMORPG market has stagnated for a while with no change. It's hard to get subscriptions for a generic MMORPG. So those failed games opt instead to survive under F2P systems.
Most MMOs fail? (http://news.mmosite.com/content/2008-02-17/20080217224802303,1.shtml)
I remember reading this article years ago. It's ironic really.
According to James Phinney, lead designer of StarCraft and Guild Wars, every great game starts with one question: "What do I want to play next?". This may seem an obvious statement, but his point is that designers are often asked to make a game that is specifically designed to be "better" than a successful game from a competitor, rather than making a game that is exciting and new.
Ironic because Guild Wars was just a generally generic RPG game with creatures and a plot no one remembers and random quests which mean nothing. It found success in that though.

However it brings up an important part. (Other than trying to call GW an MMO rather than a co-op game).
Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true, you know it, and they know it. Gamers may buy the argument that your MMO requires a subscription fee, if you can tell them what they are getting for their money. This is the legacy of games like Guild Wars, Maple Story, and Silkroad Online, all of which introduced new business models into the MMO genre and were quite successful. The subscription model is still perfectly viable, but the pain threshold is very low now. It's no secret that gamers don't want to pay a subscription fee. If you can convince them that your game offers enough value to justify it, more power to you! But be prepared to defend your decision, often and loudly, and back it up over the lifetime of your game.
It's all about the price of the subscription model compared to the amount of perceived value. 5 USD for even my friend that hates MMO subscriptions is "nothing", but 15 USD for him is "not worth it". So if they even offer a subscription it just needs to be worth it.

Raymac

2011-09-20, 09:16 PM

That trend is falsely attributed. The fact of the matter is the MMORPG market has stagnated for a while with no change. It's hard to get subscriptions for a generic MMORPG. So those failed games opt instead to survive under F2P systems.

Look dude, you can stick your head in the sand all you want and make up whatever reason you want, but the data speaks for itself. For better or worse, the future of MMOs is F2P. There will always be exceptions out there, but get used to this business model.

Sirisian

2011-09-20, 09:49 PM

Look dude, you can stick your head in the sand all you want and make up whatever reason you want, but the data speaks for itself. For better or worse, the future of MMOs is F2P. There will always be exceptions out there, but get used to this business model.
I'm not sticking my head in the sand. Using 3 data points collected from the MMORPG market for varying years and trying to create a trend is extremely naive. Even if you do that you're ignoring hundreds of variables to the market and why people made such choices. Even then you read the data wrong.

In 2010, MMO subscriptions amassed $1.58 billion. Very good. But not as good as the year before - five per cent less.

Compare that to growth of 10 per cent in 2009, and growth of 21.6 per cent in 2008, and you can appreciate why Screen Digest believes 2010 to be a pivotal year.

Okay so that gives us comparing year and percent increase in revenue.

2008, 21.6%
2009, 10.0%
2008, -5%

But wait...
The report found that money made by micro-transaction games had, on the other hand, increased sharply. In 2010, micro-transaction MMOs made $1.13 billion - 24 per cent more than in 2009.
So that means subscriptions might be going down, but it's not because it's a failed system. It's the developers choice to change a game from subscription to micro-transactions. That's why you're seeing the drop in revenue for subscriptions. Not because it's a better system for customers as a whole. But because for one reason or another (greed) it has more incentive for companies.

You're being manipulated by companies to believe allowing F2P into a game will make it better for everyone. You're targeting the wrong problem. If the subscription rate was too high then solve that. 10 USD would work for such a game. Don't try to be clever and allow for a game to be corrupted by the F2P ideas in hopes that you can push the cost onto others since it'll just end up backfiring for greed if you don't define a fixed value for the game. (SOE isn't there to break even).

Crator

2011-09-20, 10:09 PM

So, you're saying we should all just boycott the gaming industry then?

Raymac

2011-09-21, 12:21 AM

You're being manipulated by companies to believe allowing F2P into a game will make it better for everyone. You're targeting the wrong problem. If the subscription rate was too high then solve that. 10 USD would work for such a game. Don't try to be clever and allow for a game to be corrupted by the F2P ideas in hopes that you can push the cost onto others since it'll just end up backfiring for greed if you don't define a fixed value for the game. (SOE isn't there to break even).

Dude, I'm not going to get into an economics debate with you because I could give 2 shits. I really don't care if F2P is right or wrong. My only point is that it is a popular trend that IS happening, so either boycott it, as Crator says, or just deal with it.

I stopped trying to "fight the system" a long time ago. See ya in Guild Wars 2, I guess.

Sirisian

2011-09-21, 12:49 AM

So, you're saying we should all just boycott the gaming industry then?
*Dons a Tin Foil Hat* Nah man it's too late. They know it doesn't matter. Speaking of boycotting though I was sitting the #boycottPS2 channel on planetside-universe's IRC server for a while. :lol:

I wasn't directing my words at anyone in particular. I was just ranting.
See ya in Guild Wars 2, I guess.
Didn't really consider playing that game what with Rage on Oct 4th and then Skyrim on Nov 11th. Gaming already cuts into work and school as it is. :lol:

I know two developers on GW2, and it still bothers me that they try to sell the game as an "MMO". Irks me how people skew that prefix since it has no real definition.

Legion

2011-09-21, 02:12 AM

Personally, I would rather have a great Planetside 2 with a subscription than a F2P Planetside 2 that doesn't capture the magic of the original. The article by the Guild Wars developer was telling in that games like guild wars, F2P, have players who return often because there is no barrier to coming back, there is no need to resub. However, the other spectrum has WOW and EVE Online that are both successful.

Yet, Planetside 2 is not a traditional MMO. It is an MMO FPS and thus the market is not flush with competitors like the MMO RPG market. There are not a lot of alternatives to Planetside 2. So while making Planetside 2 a F2P game is very attractive in many aspects, the way they go about making it F2P could make our break the game.

Before hearing that Planetside 2 would be F2P, I had fully expected to pay a subscription fee. I was ok with that considering I knew I would get a great game. However, upon announcing that the game will be F2P, I no longer have that expectation to pay a subscription fee, but I do still have that expectation of a great game. If Planetside 2 has a payment model similar to DC Universe then I will be disappointed in both aspects. Firstly, I will be disappointed that the F2P version is not the same game as the subscription version. Secondly, I will be disappointed that I expected a F2P game, but in stead I was really given the option between subscribing or playing an inferior game.

I sure do hope that Planetside 2 is not going to be like some of you had previously posted speculations on. I hope that the F2P version doesn't have some kind of BR limit or other limit that effects how well I do against a subscription user when we are facing each other down the barrels of our guns. Maybe a resource limitation or an offline training limitation may be more reasonable. Who knows. If that does become the case then at least I can be confident that there will be lots of F2P players as fodder for me while I pay the subscription.

edit for typo

Crator

2011-09-21, 12:12 PM

Secondly, I will be disappointed that I expected a F2P game, but in stead I was really given the option between subscribing or playing an inferior game.

Blasphemy

I sure do hope that Planetside 2 is not going to be like some of you had previously posted speculations on. I hope that the F2P version doesn't have some kind of BR limit or other limit that effects how well I do against a subscription user when we are facing each other down the barrels of our guns. Maybe a resource limitation or an offline training limitation may be more reasonable. Who knows. If that does become the case then at least I can be confident that there will be lots of F2P players as fodder for me while I pay the subscription.

edit for typo

I don't quite understand this logic. So someone who pays real money (monthly sub.) verses someone who doesn't pay anything should be equal? Why?

Legion

2011-09-21, 12:38 PM

I can see how you would not want someone who doesn't pay for a subscription to get the same benefit of BR as someone who does. However it goes to my point that once they announced this game was F2P, I don't want those kind of limitations on the F2P client. I would much rather prefer limitations such as no offline training, limited resources, or extended training times. Maybe even limitations such as 1 character per server or limited customization options.

Also, what happens in a situation where you have a BR limit for F2P accounts. Take a client who pays for a subscription, takes their character all the way to the top of the BR limit, 25 for instance. Then that client decides they do not want to or cannot pay the subscription anymore. Does their character lose those BRs that they earned?

A system where the limitations I suggested would be much more amenable to players exiting and entering the subscription base. Their offline training could simply be suspended, their customization options no longer selectable, etc.

This is all just speculation, and I do think they should give more benefit to a subscription player than a F2P player if they go that route, but I think limiting BR or weapon selection would just result in a segregated battlefield where some players have access to everything and others are left inferior. Certainly the F2P player is getting the benefit of playing a great game for free, but do you want those players on your squad?

Look at a game like battlefield bad company 2, which the dev team has said they draw inspiration from. Playing as a level 1 player is terrible, the game only gets really fun when you have unlocked everything. Do you want to place those limitations on F2P players? It may very well result in people playing F2P for a few months and quitting. Just some musing I guess, I hope they can find the sweet spot between rewarding those that pay and those that do not, if they do adopt such a system.

Crator

2011-09-21, 12:58 PM

I see what you are saying about BR limitation to F2P. I asked myself the same question about if someone who already has a character above the BR limit and wants to go F2P. I see the sub vs. F2P systems working in a way that allows the F2P player to buy things piece-meal from the cash shop. Things that they would normally be allowed to obtain for free if they were subbed. Also some sort of item degradation system would have to be in place for this to work so that the F2P players would have to re-buy or buy repair items for it. So if the subbed player with BR above F2P cap limit switches to F2P all the limitations would still apply to them and the certs/items/etc. that they have that required the higher BR would no longer work and they would have to fall back on the cash shop options.

I'm not 100% on if they should gimp the F2P players in some ways vs. subbed players. It really depends if F2P players produce more revenue over subbed players I would suppose.

Raymac

2011-09-21, 01:15 PM

Yet, Planetside 2 is not a traditional MMO. It is an MMO FPS and thus the market is not flush with competitors like the MMO RPG market. There are not a lot of alternatives to Planetside 2. So while making Planetside 2 a F2P game is very attractive in many aspects, the way they go about making it F2P could make our break the game.

You raise a good point, but I think you have it reversed a bit. PS2 is not a traditional MMO indeed. Being an FPS, it's true there are not MMO competitors, however there are many many many many many FPS games out there, and 2 pretty major franchises coming out soon. Out of all of those FPS games, I don't think any of them require a subscription.

Thats the main reason why PS2 needs to be F2P. FPS players simply do not pay subscriptions for games. Fortunately, we got to see a trial of this in PS1 with the Reserves program, and it brought in many new players. While it had its drawbacks (i.e. hackers) those hurdles are not insurmountable. The 1 thing that Planetside 2 needs more than anything is alot of players, and that cannot be achieved by a subscription only since it is an FPS.

Legion

2011-09-21, 01:53 PM

I also think that MMO Fails speech made a good point that F2P games need to start their development with the mindset that they will be F2P. Therefore, you should start with the F2P model and then work any pricing system in around that. I think it will be much more beneficial to the game and the community to start with a base F2P gameplay model and then work in subscription or micro-transactions around that rather than start with a subscription model and remove features. Therefore, the F2P aspect isn't an afterthought while the micro-transactions and/or subscription is an above and beyond type service. Of course it is easier to say these things than it is to implement them. Another question is, will there be a box price? Will Planetside 2 go the route of quarterly or bi-annual updates that you can buy like DLC?

WarChimp130

2011-09-22, 06:58 PM

I'm not sure in what form they will end up releasing it, but chances are I will spend as much money on this game as they will let me spend. If there is a Legendary subscription for $15 a month, I'm not even telling my wife F2P is an option, I'm just telling her it's $15 a month. I want all the goodies.

Crator

2011-11-23, 11:16 PM

Well, I got curious and wanted to try out this game since it is F2P now. Doesn't look like anyone has talked about the pricing model they have for it since it's gone live. I was surprised to see that they limit chat for free players and premium players.

DCU Online Payment Options (http://www.dcuniverseonline.com/free/?locale=en_US)

Free - 6 text chat messages per 30 seconds.
Premium - Proximity (voice) chat, 6 text chat message per 30 seconds

Also, Station Cash (http://www.soe.com/stationcash/) looks like it's the big thing in SOE games now too... Lot of cosmetic stuff looks like for DCUO you can by with station cash...

Nice article I just found. Disscusion about F2P model for DCUO with game creative director Jens Andersen: The Flash speeding towards free-to-play 'DC Universe Online' (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gamehunters/post/2011/11/the-flash-speeding-to-dc-universe-online/1)

Marth Koopa

2011-11-24, 12:07 AM

I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to just get an SOE All Access pass. $20 a month for full access to all of SOE's stuff, including the godly game that is EverQuest? It's such a great deal.

Crator

2011-11-24, 12:10 AM

Good point. I didn't know they added DCUO to all access actually. I hadn't checked, but it is in there. I don't think it was when it first came out...

Coreldan

2011-11-24, 12:44 AM

I too have no problems supporting a f2p game I like and PS2 wont be any different. When APBRs cash shop went up, I dropped in 50€ right away. Given, they had a refund promo that gave me basically 100€ worth of points for 50€ :D

SKYeXile

2011-11-24, 02:05 AM