"Premium Features" Speculation!

[LZachariah]

I'm excited to hear that Planetside 2 will have a subscription-model available. More than likely, I will go for it (we'll see how it looks). Of course, what will ultimately determine whether or not I go for the subscription-model will be what features a subscription offers us.

First off, I'm guessing that with a subscription, we always level with the speed of being online, even if we're offline. I could also venture that we get double XP (this was also used in Global Agenda). That, and perhaps a monthly allowance of Station Cash. What do other people think?

~Zachariah

[basti]

The obvious cape? ;)


Seriously, no idea. May be an idea to look at the other games from SOE, i assume it will be rather similar.

[LZachariah]

That's a good point; I've never played a SOE game except Planetside 1. Hrmm...

[FriendlyFire]

non
combat
pets

[Coreldan]

I sure hope they wont be selling any friggign pets. Even if just visual.

Something that fits the game, please.

[LZachariah]

Yes, please let there be no pets. That would be ...silly. I don't want any silliness in Planetside 2 unless it can be toggled off (for instance, if they're going to give us Christmas hats during the holidays, that's fine, but I want to be able to uncheck a box that makes them invisible to me).

~Zachariah

[Crator]

I doubt they'll put pets in-game. Just doesn't make sense on a technical aspect...

[FastAndFree]

I sure hope they wont be selling any friggign pets. Even if just visual.

Something that fits the game, please.

Noncombat mini UAV that follows you around :P

[Ailos]

EDIT: This post turned out to be a little bit long. So here's a TL;DR version:
Based on DCUO's F2P model, there'll be 3 levels of membership, with the subscription level being the unlimited one, and most importantly, subscribers are the only ones who will be able to form outfits, while others can only join them. I think that that, combined with the new commander skill tree, means fewer 12 year old CR5s (or whatever the PS2 equivalent of that is), and means your leadership role within your empire will not automatically come to you after some time playing the game, and means those of us who really care about leadership and tactics will end up in leadership roles.



I personally anticipate PS2's pricing to be on par with DCUO. That's the last SOE title that people not normally associated with SOE actually widely heard about, and that even some of my non-gamer friends asked me about.

http://www.dcuniverseonline.com/free/

That model goes pretty well along what we've been discussing in other places:


The free level gives you access to the main game, allows you to create only 2 characters, gives you limited inventory, prohibits item trading, limits in-game currency, and throttles your chat (not that 6 messages per 30 seconds isn't enough to get your point across), and lastly, can only join leagues. In PS2 terms, I translate that to mean: 2 characters, small locker space, no item trading, limited skill tree, throttled chat, additional cost for post-launch content (it may be simply inaccessible because it's too high in a skill tree), and can only join outfits. That's limited enough to make you want to buy the game for deeper access, but not so limited that you're a meatshield on the battlefield (especially if you join an outfit, even if all you have is a suppressor, you can still be effective).
The premium level ($5+ spent) increases the number of characters you can have, allows item trading, bigger inventory space, and a higher cap on in-game currency, and you can spam the chat more freely. You still can't form leagues, and you still need to purchase expansion packs. In PS2 terms, I'd translate that to more character slots, allowance for item trading, a slight pushback in skill trees (except command trees), and more locker space, but you still can only join outfits and have to buy skill tree extensions as you approach the limits (i.e. you can start broadening your skills by beginning to cert up more vanny skills once you've maxed out your reaver, but if you really want that heavy armor on the reaver, you'll have to pay for it. The armor will naturally make the reaver slower, of course, but it gives you more situational options.)
Lastly, the subscription level gives you free access to expansion packs, even more inventory space and no cash limits, completely unlimited trading, and most importantly, you can form leagues. In PS2 that'd mean that you have the largest locker space, unlimited skill trees, and most importantly, you can be an outfit leader, and will probably be the only level of player capable of creating those outfit-specific skill trees we keep hearing so much about.


In all honesty, I would be EXTREMELY surprised if SOE doesn't offer a subscription option for PS2; I'm also pretty settled on the idea that I'm going to go for the subscription right away. I think it would be a pretty sweet deal if for the $15/mo subscription fee, premium members would get some small trickle of station cash (like 100 points, or whatever the equivalent of a couple bucks is), but in all reality, the subscription's benefits have few limits and maybe there isn't much need for spending station cash at that point (maybe I want to store more Lasher ammo in my locker, but realistically, it only gets used when the shit really hits the fan, I'm in pajamas, and the gen's been dropped).

But more to the point, that kind of a model basically means that the people with dedication to the game are the ones who will be the player leaders and the commanders - not just time dedication but financial dedication. That sounds bad at first, but it's actually a pretty good thing.

One of the biggest issues with online games is the fact that everyone plays them. Drunks, fat men with beer bellies, doctors, engineers, businessmen, college students, high school students, and even kids, and yes, women too(!). In PS1, your "leadership" position within the empire mattered only on how much time you'd spent leading a squad (not necessarily the case in outfits), which means that after a while an immature 12 year old would have just as much in-game ability to lead as a seasoned, 5-year game veteran, 30-year old outfit leader, who is also a dentist. You can see the obvious problems here.

PS2 being a F2P game, it'll be pretty hard for the 12 year old to convince his parents to buy a monthly subscription when the game itself is free. Hell, even I, an engineer by trade, find it difficult to justify to myself purchasing virtual content or virtual items. (I'm more comfortable with a subscription idea for the same reason I'm more comfortable paying for unlimited phone service than per-minute calling.) That means that the only way someone incapable of leading an empire will find themselves in a leadership opportunity is only if their parents have multiple kids, or play games themselves, and have a Station All-Access pass. But even then, they have to dedicate time to becoming an empire leader. Not in the same way that it was in PS1 - simultaneously with general character advancement and pretty much automatically - but they have to dedicate time to being an empire leader INSTEAD of dedicating time to advancing your sniper skills, for instance. I think most 12 year olds care more about how many kills they get than the general advance of the empire, nay most players care about kills more than empire advancement, that's why PS1 had The Zerg and Cyssor. That leaves those of us who care about tactics to carry out those low-kill-count, high-strategic-value missions (because we care about that kind of fun).

To me, that sounds like a pretty sound plan for making this game successful and profitable. The game being F2P will naturally create a healthy interest and steady population since it's free not just to try or for a limited time, but free always (although your character is limited in advancement, the fun in PS isn't from advancement so much as it is from teamwork, which is never limited). That means there's always going to be plenty of people to shoot. It also means that empire leadership will be composed mostly of people who truly care about strategic advancement and empire leadership, and few people who ended up in a position of decision making by accident. All we have to do to ensure the game's continued success and steady supply of fun is as empire commanders and outfit leaders, to think how we assign missions: give The Zerg what they want - the massive mindless grind, and reserve the strategic stuff for those who truly appreciate it and are willing to carry it through.

[Bittermen]

^good post

[Hmr85]

^good post

I have to agree with Bitterman above me.

If they go the route Ailos put with the 3 levels. I myself will for sure be doing a subscription. That extra bag space/locker and outfit features would be very nice.

[ThGlump]

Access (or character transfer) to subscription only server. Thats all premium i want.

[Shogun]

i agree. aios post is very likely near to reality!

there are a lot of games (not only soe) that take that exact route. lord of the rings for example, or startrek online when it will go f2p this month.

maybe the system has to be a little tweaked to fit for an fps, but this will be the business model for sure.

[NewSith]

T-REX jungle raid.

[Ailos]

T-REX jungle raid.

Will fail when I purchase velociraptor-proof doors for my outfit base.

[ThGlump]

btw trading and bigger locker in ps2? I thought that with no proper inventory there wont be room for lockers and exchanging items between players.

[Shogun]

maybe locker slots equal virtual slots in the terminal where you draw or craft your weapons. slots in the menu to choose from or favorite-slots for fast loadout changes.

there are lots of possibilitys for "slots" to be sold and restricted

[Hobitt]

F2P games should never restrict free players from content it will devide the community and for a MMOFPS its a really bad thing. And by content i mean new areas,weapons,vehicles and skills

[LZachariah]

Great post, Ailos. I'm not sure what we would do with "locker space," unless there is "loot" to collect (because we otherwise arm ourselves at terminals, so that's where our stored ammunition comes from). However, the idea of things like faster leveling or an allowance of Station Cash is very appealing. I'd probably go for this :-) And besides, I'm going to form an Outfit (and I want to see all those delicious Skill-Tree options for our Outfit!)

~Zachariah

[Lonehunter]

velociraptor-proof doors
:rofl: As if some actually existed


F2P games should never restrict free players from content
Actually I think they do quite frequently. It's why F2P games make so much money. The Free part is only a taste, the real part of the game comes when you give $. Crack dealing 101

[Nobel]

I really dont like the sound of a Premium level subscription and Free level play to have any "barriers" to anything that you can do in game. Convenience is what ill pay for. I also dont want to be able to pay to win.

What I want, and WOULD pay for in a Premium subscription is the following:

Ability to train multiple skills at once. (MOST IMPORTANT)
Special Premium Cosmetic customization
Station Cash Stipend
Early Access to new Station Store Content
Station Store "Package"
Access to Test Server
Forum Privleges
Expanded Customer Support

[Ailos]

F2P games should never restrict free players from content it will devide the community and for a MMOFPS its a really bad thing. And by content i mean new areas,weapons,vehicles and skills

I guess the exact amount of content limitation is debatable. They could make it feel pretty shitty (like during the PS Reserves), or they could make it like TF2, where you don't really notice it or feel difference. I imagine that would be part of a growing list of things to test during beta. But I'm pretty sure free accounts will have some sort of a limitation to the depth of their skill trees, but not new areas or weapons inasmuch as extra sidegrades. (Skill trees are still related to Cert points - i.e. you basically have cert trees that are based on time spent in-game in addition to XP, and limiting the depth of the skill tree leads to a limit on the number of cert points. That may not be a bad thing if you only want to be tailored to one role, but will probably be quite limiting if you want to be a jack of all trades. As a noob in PS1, you could easily become a sniper in a few minutes. But being a sniper with a med applicator and access to CE took a lot of cert points and consequently, time.)

As far as item trading, I think that would relate more to stolen weapons. I do remember Higby mentioning that we WILL have methods to scavenge weapons and ammo off or dead enemies. What with all the different customizations and sidegrades, having a modified MCG or Lasher in my hands would probably be a pretty sweet thing, although I really am curious how the issue of handling sidegrades I have no chance of learning (because I'm not on VS) will be dealt with. Either way, I want, no NEED, to be able to not only rape a barney with my JH, but to then take his gun and give him a taste of his own medicine.

[LZachariah]

I'm very much in agreement with Nobel: I would rather that this subscription model (or free model) not prevent anyone from any content, but rather, make content more accessible to Premium members (faster leveling, maybe an allowance of resources, etc). This would be the best option, because it doesn't engender any feelings of being walled-off from content. When players see that they've been gated-off from content, it fosters resentment. It would be better to allow players access to everything, but they have to work for it (like in LoL, wherein you can eventually buy any hero you want, with lots of XP as currency). OR you can be a Premium member, and grab armloads of awesome stuff almost immediately (and regularly, such as with an allowance of cash/currency).

I am very pleased that Higby said "We love League of Legends' payment program." This game will flourish under such a system.

~Zachariah

[SKYeXile]

F2P games should never restrict free players from content it will devide the community and for a MMOFPS its a really bad thing. And by content i mean new areas,weapons,vehicles and skills

Freeplay user says what?


Anyway, theres no surprise about this. But those things you mentioned in Ailos about the bonuses for subbed players are similar to the ones in free realms too, so no doubt PS2 will have the same. But if resources are holdable by players than i forsee premium users collecting and holding more of them, along with leveling faster and jumping ques, with the possibility of accessing restricted classes like perhaps MAX...we will see.

[Ailos]

I'm very much in agreement with Nobel: I would rather that this subscription model (or free model) not prevent anyone from any content, but rather, make content more accessible to Premium members (faster leveling, maybe an allowance of resources, etc). This would be the best option, because it doesn't engender any feelings of being walled-off from content. When players see that they've been gated-off from content, it fosters resentment. It would be better to allow players access to everything, but they have to work for it (like in LoL, wherein you can eventually buy any hero you want, with lots of XP as currency). OR you can be a Premium member, and grab armloads of awesome stuff almost immediately (and regularly, such as with an allowance of cash/currency).

I am very pleased that Higby said "We love League of Legends' payment program." This game will flourish under such a system.

~Zachariah

Haven't really given it a thought, but that's not a bad alternative, and I'd be equally happy with that.

I think the only real important aspect of the premium subscription model I want is the ability for subscribers to form outfits restricted to them. Then we'd have less "l33t h4x0rz" outfits and more Knights of the Old Republic, proportionately speaking.

[Bittermen]

I really dont like the sound of a Premium level subscription and Free level play to have any "barriers" to anything that you can do in game. Convenience is what ill pay for. I also dont want to be able to pay to win.

What I want, and WOULD pay for in a Premium subscription is the following:

Ability to train multiple skills at once. (MOST IMPORTANT)
Special Premium Cosmetic customization
Station Cash Stipend
Early Access to new Station Store Content
Station Store "Package"
Access to Test Server
Forum Privleges
Expanded Customer Support

Remember this is speculation. We have no details on what SOE is doing.

[LZachariah]

Yes, Ailos, I would be very comfortable with that feature being restricted to paying players only. And you know, that would ensure more fidelity-over-time of Outfits, because I think that paying players would be more likely to be in the game long-term, rather than someone who tries the game on a lark and leaves a month later.

I think there are lots of players who have this fantasy of immediately setting up some "L33t Outf1t" and becoming respected and feared throughout the game. That is really going to happen to only the top 10%-15% of Outfits. Now, human beings have this unhelpful phenomenon wherein something they really want often looks very accessible to them (which is why so many teenagers believe that they personally will grow up to be wealthy or a star football player). I think this phenomenon I describe would lead many players to just "setting up" their own Outfit at character creation or soon after. Restricting Outfits to only paying players might thin out this situation a little, in a good way.

[Bittermen]

I'm very much in agreement with Nobel: I would rather that this subscription model (or free model) not prevent anyone from any content, but rather, make content more accessible to Premium members (faster leveling, maybe an allowance of resources, etc). This would be the best option, because it doesn't engender any feelings of being walled-off from content. When players see that they've been gated-off from content, it fosters resentment. It would be better to allow players access to everything, but they have to work for it (like in LoL, wherein you can eventually buy any hero you want, with lots of XP as currency). OR you can be a Premium member, and grab armloads of awesome stuff almost immediately (and regularly, such as with an allowance of cash/currency).

I am very pleased that Higby said "We love League of Legends' payment program." This game will flourish under such a system.

~Zachariah

Tribes Ascend is a another good example of F2P done right. You can can purchase classes via tokens, which is earned from matches, or you can buy gold and unlock them instantly.

It also has the $30 VIP status which gives you access to VIP servers, a set amount of gold, and faster xp gain.

[Ailos]

Yes, Ailos, I would be very comfortable with that feature being restricted to paying players only. And you know, that would ensure more fidelity-over-time of Outfits, because I think that paying players would be more likely to be in the game long-term, rather than someone who tries the game on a lark and leaves a month later.

I think there are lots of players who have this fantasy of immediately setting up some "L33t Outf1t" and becoming respected and feared throughout the game. That is really going to happen to only the top 10%-15% of Outfits. Now, human beings have this unhelpful phenomenon wherein something they really want often looks very accessible to them (which is why so many teenagers believe that they personally will grow up to be wealthy or a star football player). I think this phenomenon I describe would lead many players to just "setting up" their own Outfit at character creation or soon after. Restricting Outfits to only paying players might thin out this situation a little, in a good way.

Exactly. It would be much more beneficial for new players to join an outfit formed by us, veterans, than to form one of their own, be active for a month and then die off. Part of Planetside's addicting nature is the sense of teamwork and accomplishment one gets while part of an effective outfit with at least a full platoon. I think the game benefits from having 20, large outfits, even when some of those outfits' sole purpose is to help the Zerg to find squads of other Zerg to farm XP around, rather than 200 outfits, only 10 of which do organized operations, and the others are groups no one ever sees except maybe once a month.

And I think the devs' giving ability for outfits to have their own skill trees is their way of encouraging new players of following that route. (I think Matt's been pretty open about that aspect.)

[DviddLeff]

The key thing is that he says that its not pay to win, so anything that follows that is fine by me, mostly.

[ThGlump]

Another thing that could be easier for premium is switching class. We dont know if there is some timer, but it could be something like 20 min between switch for free, with purchasable upgrades, ending with no limit in premium. No effect on gameplay, but give premium players more freedom.

[Sifer2]

I said it already but I think you will see Free players restricted from using certain things. Like MAX armor or Heavy Tanks/Aircraft. It would be terrible if free griefers were allowed behind the wheel of a Galaxy after all just so they could crash you all into the ground :P

They may even go as far as to limit your inventory. Like free players only get one weapon where as subscribers can carry two and a pistol. It might seem extreme but they will go as far as they need to get your money. They only want it free enough to make you try it since its not a charity.

This is why honestly I would be happier if they had went with a buy to play type model. Where the base game does cost money. Then they wouldn't need to force so many microtransactions on the playerbase an we would have a more even playing field. But at this point it sounds like they are commited to doing the lame F2P route and are busy deciding how to sabotage free players enough to get them paying.

[SKYeXile]

I said it already but I think you will see Free players restricted from using certain things. Like MAX armor or Heavy Tanks/Aircraft. It would be terrible if free griefers were allowed behind the wheel of a Galaxy after all just so they could crash you all into the ground :P

They may even go as far as to limit your inventory. Like free players only get one weapon where as subscribers can carry two and a pistol. It might seem extreme but they will go as far as they need to get your money. They only want it free enough to make you try it since its not a charity.

This is why honestly I would be happier if they had went with a buy to play type model. Where the base game does cost money. Then they wouldn't need to force so many microtransactions on the playerbase an we would have a more even playing field. But at this point it sounds like they are commited to doing the lame F2P route and are busy deciding how to sabotage free players enough to get them paying.

PS2 wont be able to support itself longterm with just a box price, it needs ongoing revenue.

[Bittermen]

PS2 wont be able to support itself longterm with just a box price, it needs ongoing revenue.

And f2p opens the the game up to a much wider audience.

Whocares if they buncha nooblets, CANNON FODDER ANYONE?

[EASyEightyEight]

I really dont like the sound of a Premium level subscription and Free level play to have any "barriers" to anything that you can do in game. Convenience is what ill pay for. I also dont want to be able to pay to win.

What I want, and WOULD pay for in a Premium subscription is the following:

Ability to train multiple skills at once. (MOST IMPORTANT)
-Or faster skill training at least.
Special Premium Cosmetic customization
Station Cash Stipend
Early Access to new Station Store Content
Station Store "Package"
-Exclusive Commander skills (Maybe? Preferably?)
-Outfit creation and leadership capabilities.
Access to Test Server
Forum Privleges
Expanded Customer Support

I too have to support this, with a few personal additions. Paying an optional subscription should bring primarily convenience and flare to the subscriber. Actual content should be for everyone. In some cases, "convenience" is actually time, where one pays money instead of time to train a skill, if only faster, not instantly.

Forcing an active subscription as a requirement to creating and leading outfits, and possibly to fully access all of the commander skills, is about the only in-game exclusive content I'll support. I agree that we don't need over 9000 outfits springing up over the delusions of one guy/kid thinking it'll become something huge, and forcing a sub first would reduce the numbers. Further, if WoW's guild perks are ANY indication, encouraging players to seek an outfit with bonuses works, and further strengthening their preferred method of play can only be a good thing. We WANT tank pilots to look for the most developed tank outfit in their chosen empire. That's just one example.

I also like the idea of premium only cosmetic options. Normally I'm against something like exclusivity in this regard, but I feel allowing subscribers access to custom armor pieces/decorations to show they're a loyalist/elite might be a fun choice they should be allowed to make, but they should always remember there is also a stigma attached. Freebies always seem to want everything the payers have, they just don't want to pay for it.

[SKYeXile]

And f2p opens the the game up to a much wider audience.

Whocares if they buncha nooblets, CANNON FODDER ANYONE?

exactly.

[Quantumplation]

This is why honestly I would be happier if they had went with a buy to play type model. Where the base game does cost money. Then they wouldn't need to force so many microtransactions on the playerbase an we would have a more even playing field. But at this point it sounds like they are commited to doing the lame F2P route and are busy deciding how to sabotage free players enough to get them paying.

I think the key subtlety that you're not addressing behind the F2P model is this:

Planetside 1 was a great game while it had players. Any decrease in player-base (within reason) resulted in a decrease in fun, and thereby a further decrease in playerbase. By making the game free to play, the idea isn't to "try and hook the new player and then force them to pay", but to constantly make sure that the game is fun for those who do pay. In essence, they're turning a liability (someone who's not paying them) into an asset (someone who, by their mere presence, makes the game more fun) that enriches the experience for their paying customer base. This is a genius move, and it's a fundamental shift in the industry paradigm called the economy of free. I'm sure SOE has recognized that imposing limits that are too restricting on the free player isn't going to "get them to pay" (the people who are going to pay are going to pay anyway, to some extent), but more than likely ruin the experience and drive them away, thus decreasing the game play experience of those who do pay.

So yes, there's going to be some restrictions on the free players, simply to make paying worth something for those who are willing to play, but I think SOE would be, quite frankly, stupid to overstep that boundary and not take advantage of the amazing property of the format of the Planetside games that allows them to give away something free to make the rest of their product more marketable.

[ThGlump]

Yea tons of players to shoot. But why players were leaving ps1? Because there was too few ppl? That was a secondary reason as many left before so rest then left due low pop. And why they start leaving? It was soe fault. Lack of/bad updates, and ignoring hackers drove them away. They could change first (if they got enough money from f2p), but that second wont change.
So yes ps2 could be full all the time (freebies), but there must be some paying players. Soe should take care of them first, give them enjoyable game, and when they are willing to pay, then provide them some freebie cannon fodder (enjoyable for them too, but they dont need everything for that). If you give everything for free, there wont be enough money to keep game alive.

[Figment]

My expectations are indeed along the lines of the DCUO system, with a couple things you see in World of Tanks ("Barracks/Garage", ie. increased locker space, multiple characters) and Battlefield Heroes ("Cosmetics", ie. camouflage, eye-patch, etc) and indeed the premium thing. Perhaps you can queue more skills to train and offline training may last longer as well: where others would have to login each day to select the next skill to train as Higby mentioned a while ago, you as a premium user could perhaps go on holiday for a few days?

Either way, I expressly do not expect nor want things from either World of Tanks or Battlefield heroes that can be considered pay-to-win: 'gold ammo', 'extra med kits', 'special temp buffs to your unit'. That sort of thing should be out of the question.


In addition, I would expect the resource system to be linked with this as well. Higby stated every player gets awarded a certain amount of resources by the empire for conquests and battle, as well as simply an additional allowance for how big the empire is at that time. In that sense, I expect the daily gain and perhaps the maximum on the resource pool per player to get some sort of multiplyer (like experience).

Note that this would have the consequence that free players would get to pull fewer vehicles a day, unless they conquer more. This would provide an extra incentive for these players to be on the offensive, rather than just farm. It would also provide some more depth in the choice of pulling a vehicle now or later (much like OS timers: use it now, or wait?).

In fact, if they make this strict enough, it could reduce the manpower requirement problem we've been debating before as gunner seats become interesting simply because you can't afford your own tank right then and there. However, the risk is this gets to be seen as 'pay to win' by freebee users when you get to have more frequent access to vehicles. This may become a tricky thing to balance, not just economically for the battlefield balance, but also for emotional balance between account types.

In World of Tanks you often hear things like "Premium Noobs" whenever someone uses a purchased tank (which may not be entirely accurate, since these players use premium tanks to gain extra credits, as they do not pay for a subscription that gets them extra credits per fight). However, the increase in skill training could be compared to World of Tanks speed of upgrading: premium gets more experience points (x1.5) and thus upgrades their tanks faster. In a sense it is a form of "pay to win over time" as you get a temporary upgraded time advantage, but it is not something you would directly notice in combat aside from someone using the upgraded equipment (which you obtain later as well).

[LZachariah]

Well, I don't think that anyone is arguing whether or not a Premium player would have an advantage, that's definitely the point. So "Pay to Win Over Time" is understandable, even expected. It would be insane for the Devs to say "your gameplay experience will be absolutely the same whether you subscribe or not." What they're working on (and what we're discussing) is what Premium features provide a worthwhile benefit while not making the Premium player more formidable on a moment-to-moment basis. A Premium player should not have inherently more hit points than a non-Premium player, but it is reasonable to say that their working toward extra-hit-point unlocks could perhaps be worth 1.5x or 2x as much, so they would reach it faster.

I think that most people on this thread have a good sense of what to expect, and what would be a good model.

~Zachariah

[Sirisian]

I want a subscription account to have a player of each faction with the same character name with the ability to train on each faction. I don't care if there is a switch timer, but the concept of creating 3 separate accounts to play all the factions seems lame.

[Zulthus]

I want a subscription account to have a player of each faction with the same character name with the ability to train on each faction. I don't care if there is a switch timer, but the concept of creating 3 separate accounts to play all the factions seems lame.

Go to a different server. I like that they're making it 1 empire per server.

[Sirisian]

Go to a different server. I like that they're making it 1 empire per server.
How about I just log into my other free account? Why would I play on a different server than my friends. That would be pointless. I had friends who played TR once in a while so we'd hunt each other down in the middle of fights. Good times. Or we'd team up on the same faction. The current system is really just an inconvenience if I have to create 3 accounts. The whole idea with selling convenience should be getting rid of these problems. It's something I'd pay for. I imagine I'm not alone.

[Zulthus]

Then log into another account if you wish... at least it slows down empire hoppers.

[DeadlyButters]

What you guys have got to remember about the f2p side of this game is that, if the f2p side is shit and limits your abilities in the game. Dont expect the servers to be full for more than a month or two because people will just leave. The thing about todays games market is that there is a MOTHERLOAD of other games that people could be playing other than PS2. If PS2 cant get people hooked (with the exception of veterans) through f2p methods then this game will just die i reckon and i dont want that to happen!!

ps I plan to play this game free until I can (hopefully) afford a subscription and this is the same situation i experienced with DCUO. I played for 2 weeks before I just gave up because of how much that game limited the experience (the money limit was a fucking joke).

[SKYeXile]

What you guys have got to remember about the f2p side of this game is that, if the f2p side is shit and limits your abilities in the game. Dont expect the servers to be full for more than a month or two because people will just leave. The thing about todays games market is that there is a MOTHERLOAD of other games that people could be playing other than PS2. If PS2 cant get people hooked (with the exception of veterans) through f2p methods then this game will just die i reckon and i dont want that to happen!!

ps I plan to play this game free until I can (hopefully) afford a subscription and this is the same situation i experienced with DCUO. I played for 2 weeks before I just gave up because of how much that game limited the experience (the money limit was a fucking joke).

but you played DCUO, would you have played it if you had to buy it?

[CutterJohn]

I'm more curious about what will happen to your character(s) when you drop the subscription. One of the key features I love about f2p models is you get to play on your terms. I would still hop into PS occasionally if it were f2p, but it definitely isn't worth $15 a month to me, so I don't.

So what happens, 6 months or a year after release, when I'm starting to get bored with the game and play it less? Can I no longer access my premium characters? Will I be able to access, but have some artificial level cap?

[Sirisian]

Then log into another account if you wish... at least it slows down empire hoppers.
How does it slow them down? Your argument is kind of weak. I said they can put a timer if they wanted. This is for what you want which is a delay. If I have 3 accounts (or how many I choose) I could just logout then login which would take all of 10 seconds. Remember in Planetside how you could be driving a vehicle crash, restart your computer, then log back in and still be in your vehicle. You're looking at a 10 second switch for the average gamer. If you're seriously going to start to whine about empire hopping you're going to be crying when the game is launched.

[Zulthus]

How is my argument weak? They're making it one empire per server per account. Not everyone is going to want multiple accounts to keep track of. There will be less empire hoppers with this system in place. I'm not whining about it either, I said I was glad that they're making the game this way.

[Sirisian]

How is my argument weak? They're making it one empire per server per account. Not everyone is going to want multiple accounts to keep track of. There will be less empire hoppers with this system in place. I'm not whining about it either, I said I was glad that they're making the game this way.
It's weak because I disagree that it'll deter empire hopping. I was just saying they'd have a better chance putting it as a subscription only feature of "Can have multiple faction accounts on a server" which allows them to profit. The complexity is how to handle things when a subscription ends, but a huge timer would solve that along with limiting training 1 character per server.

Then again if we have multiple (3) decent servers in the US East with good population counts I personally don't care. I just want to experience all 3 factions. My faction loyalty isn't that strong when it comes to experiencing all the gameplay types and to test which one is the best.

[SKYeXile]

It's weak because I disagree that it'll deter empire hopping. I was just saying they'd have a better chance putting it as a subscription only feature of "Can have multiple faction accounts on a server" which allows them to profit. The complexity is how to handle things when a subscription ends, but a huge timer would solve that along with limiting training 1 character per server.

Then again if we have multiple (3) decent servers in the US East with good population counts I personally don't care. I just want to experience all 3 factions. My faction loyalty isn't that strong when it comes to experiencing all the gameplay types and to test which one is the best.

I thought thats what beta was for?

Well not for me personally though, because i see no other option than vanu.

[pscheaters]

Was beta and GM for a game bought that was eventually bought by SOE. They made the commercial decision then to turn a free game into a subscription game. That's ok I guess.

But what is not ok and will get a massive negative reaction from the player community is to start off as a subscription game and then change their mind later and go F2P with microtransactions.

F2P means they are pushing for a cult following in the game with a massive playerbase and revenue income from advertising and microtransactions.

I am somewhat hesitant on whether F2P would work but will hold my tongue till I see what comes out...

[CutterJohn]

How is my argument weak? They're making it one empire per server per account. Not everyone is going to want multiple accounts to keep track of. There will be less empire hoppers with this system in place. I'm not whining about it either, I said I was glad that they're making the game this way.

I specifically asked about this months ago. They said they have no plans to allow more than one empire per account, but also nothing against the idea.

That was, of course, before F2P made the idea of locking accounts moot.

Empire hoppers can be combated by simply encouraging people to hop to the weak empire with benefits. Team balance is in no way a new concept to FPS games.


Yes, Ailos, I would be very comfortable with that feature being restricted to paying players only. And you know, that would ensure more fidelity-over-time of Outfits, because I think that paying players would be more likely to be in the game long-term, rather than someone who tries the game on a lark and leaves a month later.

Then put the ability to start or join an outfit in the store and charge $5 for it. Now they are paying customers.

People who wish to have a subscription are in no way superior to those who prefer purchasing stuff from an item store.

[Figment]

I'm more curious about what will happen to your character(s) when you drop the subscription. One of the key features I love about f2p models is you get to play on your terms. I would still hop into PS occasionally if it were f2p, but it definitely isn't worth $15 a month to me, so I don't.

So what happens, 6 months or a year after release, when I'm starting to get bored with the game and play it less? Can I no longer access my premium characters? Will I be able to access, but have some artificial level cap?

It could be that, like in World of Tanks where you buy a garage slot to get another tank, you have to buy a character slot for a low amount of money and that from there on it is permanent.

This reverting to other sub-structure is also why I do not expect skill tree limitations, just progression speed differences.

[Ailos]

I'm more curious about what will happen to your character(s) when you drop the subscription. One of the key features I love about f2p models is you get to play on your terms. I would still hop into PS occasionally if it were f2p, but it definitely isn't worth $15 a month to me, so I don't.

So what happens, 6 months or a year after release, when I'm starting to get bored with the game and play it less? Can I no longer access my premium characters? Will I be able to access, but have some artificial level cap?

The DCUO website says basically you get downgraded to the second level, as if you've been a previous cash shop customer, and you're only able to access expansion pack content that you've previously purchased through micro transactions.

A most direct translation of this into PS2 terms would mean that unless you've previously purchased chunks of your skill trees, they will no longer be accessible. E.g. let's say that the free accounts are limited to tier 3 skills for all classes. As a subscriber, you've trained your HA to the top of tier 4, and your cavalry driver to tier 2. Upon expiration of your subscription, this model means that your tier 4 HA skills (weapons/sidegrades, etc.) are no longer accessible, but you can still train your cavalry driver stuff to tier 3.

Personally, I hope that wouldn't be the case - that doesn't seem fair to subscribers, and I could see a large number of people in the situation you described. Stuff happens in life sometimes and a game's cash shop should be flexible enough to accommodate. I would prefer that they instead simply let you keep those tier 4 HA skills, although if you wanted to train up to tier 5, you'd still have to buy those from the shop.


Then put the ability to start or join an outfit in the store and charge $5 for it. Now they are paying customers.

People who wish to have a subscription are in no way superior to those who prefer purchasing stuff from an item store.

Also a perfectly valid idea.

Having a subscription is a matter of convenience to me, so I wouldn't see 12 transactions for $1.15 on my credit card over the month period. Furthermore, I suspect that the $15/mo spent by subscribers is more than the amount your average cash shop customer would spend on a monthly basis, not necessarily because they don't have the money, but because you only need so many silly hats, voice macros, and locker space (and most of won't be forming outfits once a month either).

So for that reason, those of us that have already committed our minds to go with a subscription option if there is one, want to feel like we're getting our money's worth. We want to give our money to SOE for a job well done, but part of a job well done is us being happy about what we're paying for. It's a little circular logic, but to me at least, it's easier to come to terms with a subscription than a bunch of cash shop items.

I think in the end, this would basically have to come down to the right pricing for cash shop items, especially if the stuff you can buy is skill tiers. Someone who buys their skill tiers from the cash shop should have every right to train them just as fast as a subscriber, and at the end of the month, the amount they spend on buying those blocks of the tree should be slightly above the subscription fee. Somewhere around that point is where it'll be cheaper for a casual player to be a cash shop customer without losing any in-game balance, and with SOE still in a profitable position.

[Knightwyvern]

Honestly I find the idea of limiting skills or certs by subscription model to be an abhorrent idea. It may not exactly be pay to win, but in my book it does mean pay to enjoy. The funny thing is, I definitely plan on paying for a subscription, if only to support PS2. IMO a subscription should only be a small monthly stipend of "Station Cash," a few extra character slots, and maybe something like access to Apps pulling API for up to date PS2 info on the go. I don't even want any in game way to identify between subbers and freebies. I think it would cause too much division and grief (figuratively and literally) between players.

As many others have said, give me convenience, but not anything that actually affects me or others in the game itself. And that includes limiting skills.

[Hobitt]

Honestly I find the idea of limiting skills or certs by subscription model to be an abhorrent idea. It may not exactly be pay to win, but in my book it does mean pay to enjoy. The funny thing is, I definitely plan on paying for a subscription, if only to support PS2. IMO a subscription should only be a small monthly stipend of "Station Cash," a few extra character slots, and maybe something like access to Apps pulling API for up to date PS2 info on the go. I don't even want any in game way to identify between subbers and freebies. I think it would cause too much division and grief (figuratively and literally) between players.

As many others have said, give me convenience, but not anything that actually affects me or others in the game itself. And that includes limiting skills.

Agree on this there shouldn't be any game changing difference between freebies and subbers

[Sifer2]

Agree on this there shouldn't be any game changing difference between freebies and subbers


It's a nice idea but wont happen. It's a business not a charity. Part of being a F2P game is that you create a payer class with extra benefits and a freebie lower class that has to grind more or is gimped in some way. If its not like this at launch its likely to become that way over time if they are not meeting the profit expectations they wanted.

I mean this is SOE were talking about after all. How many games did they out right ruin in an attempt to raise profits? That's why I wish the game was buy to play with everyone on a more even playing field. Something more like Guild Wars did.

[SKYeXile]

Honestly I find the idea of limiting skills or certs by subscription model to be an abhorrent idea. It may not exactly be pay to win, but in my book it does mean pay to enjoy. The funny thing is, I definitely plan on paying for a subscription, if only to support PS2. IMO a subscription should only be a small monthly stipend of "Station Cash," a few extra character slots, and maybe something like access to Apps pulling API for up to date PS2 info on the go. I don't even want any in game way to identify between subbers and freebies. I think it would cause too much division and grief (figuratively and literally) between players.

As many others have said, give me convenience, but not anything that actually affects me or others in the game itself. And that includes limiting skills.

Its a sad day when you have to pay to enjoy thing, a sad day indeed...oh wait, no its not...its been like that for centuries....

[Figment]

The DCUO website says basically you get downgraded to the second level, as if you've been a previous cash shop customer, and you're only able to access expansion pack content that you've previously purchased through micro transactions.

A most direct translation of this into PS2 terms would mean that unless you've previously purchased chunks of your skill trees, they will no longer be accessible. E.g. let's say that the free accounts are limited to tier 3 skills for all classes. As a subscriber, you've trained your HA to the top of tier 4, and your cavalry driver to tier 2. Upon expiration of your subscription, this model means that your tier 4 HA skills (weapons/sidegrades, etc.) are no longer accessible, but you can still train your cavalry driver stuff to tier 3.

Personally, I hope that wouldn't be the case - that doesn't seem fair to subscribers, and I could see a large number of people in the situation you described. Stuff happens in life sometimes and a game's cash shop should be flexible enough to accommodate. I would prefer that they instead simply let you keep those tier 4 HA skills, although if you wanted to train up to tier 5, you'd still have to buy those from the shop.

I'd like to point out that skills being purchasable would per definition be "pay to win" as they'd get specific combat advantages over others. That is supposed to be a no-no (pay for cosmetics only!). I'd also like to point out that Higby stated that over loooong periods of time you would be able to train all skills (not sure if that also means having access to all certs... hope not). I cannot imagine that on top of getting there slower, your access would be further restricted or in fact reduced. That would definitely feel like a set back, in fact it would probably feel as if SOE is punishing you for stopping to give them money.

Punishing players for stopping to sub in that sense would not make them eager to return to a subscription as they'd feel cheated and forced back into purchasing a subscription.




As for what else you could get for a premium account? How about access to PlanetSide 1?

[SKYeXile]

I'd like to point out that skills being purchasable would per definition be "pay to win" as they'd get specific combat advantages over others. That is supposed to be a no-no (pay for cosmetics only!). I'd also like to point out that Higby stated that over loooong periods of time you would be able to train all skills (not sure if that also means having access to all certs... hope not). I cannot imagine that on top of getting there slower, your access would be further restricted or in fact reduced. That would definitely feel like a set back, in fact it would probably feel as if SOE is punishing you for stopping to give them money.

Punishing players for stopping to sub in that sense would not make them eager to return to a subscription as they'd feel cheated and forced back into purchasing a subscription.




As for what else you could get for a premium account? How about access to PlanetSide 1?

Having more skills or been able to buy them would mean you're more versatile, side grades and different weapons attachments also do not grant more power, perhaps to a specific playstyle they would, but they also have their downsides, so they offer no overall increase in power. Most people and the devs agree with that.

[Figment]

Having more skills or been able to buy them would mean you're more versatile, side grades and different weapons attachments also do not grant more power, perhaps to a specific playstyle they would, but they also have their downsides, so they offer no overall increase in power. Most people and the devs agree with that.

Certainly more versatile, but I'm talking about having gone over a certain treshold in equipment/skills and then being reduced back to a former state because you stopped subbing. That would certainly feel like a downgrade especially if you just modelled everything for your playstyle using those skills, regardless if the "overall power" is more or less equal (pretty much doubting equality is that guaranteable, look at Cycler <--> Gauss discussions in the past: minimal difference, big impact on weapon selection). Though personally I'd call a higher degree in versatility or adaptability a combat advantage.

Either way, I would imagine that it is never a good idea to take away access to someone's toys in a f2p game, when others do have access to it for they may cry over the loss and premium noobs.

[Knocky]

Common sense says that if there is nothing that a majority of players find worth paying for....then this "free" game will disappear.

Whatever they need to do to keep the game going they should. If the freeloaders whine about something that they perceive as pay-to-win, then screw em.

[Figment]

Premium would be worth paying for just for the experience multiplier for most people. Reductions of what you obtained would be silly.

Imagine if you had a fodder account, upgraded it, got Br 40 Cr5, but then stopped subbing but continued to play for free and would be reduced back to Br6/12 Cr2. Or if you stopped subbing and continued to be Cr5 while other fodders would just be Br6/12 Cr2 max.

You think there'd only be a little whining about that?

[SKYeXile]

Certainly more versatile, but I'm talking about having gone over a certain treshold in equipment/skills and then being reduced back to a former state because you stopped subbing. That would certainly feel like a downgrade especially if you just modelled everything for your playstyle using those skills, regardless if the "overall power" is more or less equal (pretty much doubting equality is that guaranteable, look at Cycler <--> Gauss discussions in the past: minimal difference, big impact on weapon selection). Though personally I'd call a higher degree in versatility or adaptability a combat advantage.

Either way, I would imagine that it is never a good idea to take away access to someone's toys in a f2p game, when others do have access to it for they may cry over the loss and premium noobs.

They can take away incentives when you unsub for sure, but if you buy a skill or skill unlock, whatever they want to call it they cant take it away. This is why BFR's stayed in PS1, people paid for them.

I doubt that you will see your BR reduced when you unsub, SOE has always provided incentives to subbed players in their other games, not level unlocks, i cant see PS2 been different.

[Crator]

They can take away incentives when you unsub for sure, but if you buy a skill or skill unlock, whatever they want to call it they cant take it away. This is why BFR's stayed in PS1, people paid for them.

I doubt that you will see your BR reduced when you unsub, SOE has always provided incentives to subbed players in their other games, not level unlocks, i cant see PS2 been different.

If this is the case, wouldn't it make more sense to not sub and just buy everything you want from the cash shop?

[CutterJohn]

I'd like to point out that skills being purchasable would per definition be "pay to win" as they'd get specific combat advantages over others. That is supposed to be a no-no (pay for cosmetics only!).

By that reasoning any non cosmetic benefit given to a subscription is also pay to win.

If this is the case, wouldn't it make more sense to not sub and just buy everything you want from the cash shop?

Station pass, for starters. Get a lot of game for your money.

Aside from that.. Yes, buying from the shop would be the better deal since its indefinite access, and after a certain point, it would be cheaper than subscription.

My guess is that subscription will just grant you access to consumables in the store, like a 30 day xp/training speed/resource gathering boost, with subscription being a slightly better deal than purchasing them a la carte from the store. Rather like how the 6 month subs are a bit cheaper than 1 month.

[FriendlyFire]

If this is the case, wouldn't it make more sense to not sub and just buy everything you want from the cash shop?

Buying from the Cash Shop is the ideal situation for SOE. Subs are just the icing on the cake.

I am certain, anything obtained during "Subscription" will still be active when the Sub ends.

[Hobitt]

A subscription could offer discounts at the cashshop or special offers + monthly amount of station cash

[Coreldan]

I like that idea. APBs premium gives you 20% discount off of everything sold in the marketplace.

[Knightwyvern]

I'm bringing this over from kklkit's post on the PC Gamer preview article thread:
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/microtransactions

IMO pretty much sums this topic up excellently.

[LZachariah]

Yes, I think that this video is excellent (it's been posted somewhere around here recently besides your post just now).

I think that if Higby and T-Ray and all the awesome Planetside 2 crew members take note of this video and closely observe the League of Legends Free-2-Play model, I think this game will flourish.

And i WANT it to flourish. And I have a wallet! Please let me use it!

~Zachariah