F2P problem to be?

[Attackmack]

This might have been discussed and answered but im retarded and cant work out the search ( or maybe im not and do and just lazy).

But without a monthly sub income, how can SOE expect to have the continous funds to pay for the server/staff upkeep for a server and support heavy game like PS2?

Because with all said and done, how long do they think that cosmetics and boosters will generate income? A few months perhaps? And after that, it will be s few purchases here and there.

Im seriously worried about this. I would prefer s monthly sub to secure the stability and conitinued support. The other option is a pay to win option and that is thankfully (hopefully) out of the question.

Thoughts?


Oh yeah, snd TR for all times! Die VS and NC scum!

[Malorn]

Hats.

[JHendy]

MAXs that look like Gundams.

[KnightHawk ECID]

Armour and equipment customization /thread

[Malorn]

For more insight into their business model, watch this video.
Extra Credits: Microtransactions (The Escapist) - YouTube

[Mastachief]

Strap on's..


LOL seem to make millions.

[MyMeatStick]

They already mentioned there was going to be a paid subscription iirc.

[NCLynx]

Yea, people stopped buying things for TF2 years ago.

[Mastachief]

Also, SOE are not new to f2p

DCUO to name but only one

[cBselfmonkey]

D&D Online, Champions Online, Lord of the Rings Online etc... Were all once sub based and failed to hold onto a large amount of subscribers post launch. When they did make the switch to F2P they not only usually ended up with a large, fairly stable player bases but they actually made more money. Heck the original Guild Wars is a great example of a F2P MMO that was a terrific success.

Not having a sub fee encourages more people to at least try the game. Something that could be especially important for PS2 considering how different it is from most other MMOs.

[CutterJohn]

Even if they add pay to win, so what? Its functionally identical to having a subscription, with the exception that you are still able to play if you choose not to pay, even if disadvantaged, instead of being unable to play at all.

The worry about 'pay to win' reaches completely irrational levels.

[Malorn]

The worry about 'pay to win' reaches completely irrational levels.

It is the perception of unfairness and being deceived that players find most revolting. Nobody likes being lied to, taken advantage of, or swindled, regardless of how insignificant it might be.

[Haro]

If the devs manage to get their system anywhere near what Valve implemented for TF2, I won't be very concerned. The escapist video is right: structure your micro-transaction system the right way, and players will buy things. Even though valve does kinda skirt around the edges of the "don't sell power" rule, the game remains very profitable, popular, and largely balanced.

[Stardouser]

Malorn, just curious about something. There was a leaked speech from one of EA's investor meetings and the guy basically said two things of extreme interest about microtransactions:
1. He said that HE paid a lot of money per year on them(he either said $1500 or $5000, can't remember which)
2. He made a comment about how when the player is in the middle of a firefight and needs to reload, they've got you(ie, charging for bullets).

One of my first thoughts was, you know, if you provide an MMO quality game(ie, a large scale persistent world) like PS2 is doing, I will be willing to pay around the equivalent of what a monthly sub would be, $200 per year or so. And I thought, we aren't all EA CEOs that can spend $5000 or even $1500 per year on bullets.

What do you think about that? Not necessarily that SOE is going to do this, but could that be something to fear elsewhere in the industry?

I'm not even talking about pay 2 win here, but the idea that we might end up forced to pay $1000 or more just to experience the full game.

[Runlikethewind]

Great video, explains it well. I'm not worried about F2P PS2. From what I can tell they are doing it right. The subscription fee is what has kept me out of PS1 all this time. When I heard PS2 was going to be F2P I was ecstatic.

[CutterJohn]

It is the perception of unfairness and being deceived that players find most revolting. Nobody likes being lied to, taken advantage of, or swindled, regardless of how insignificant it might be.

I would accept that argument if it were ever presented. :)

[Malorn]

Malorn, just curious about something. There was a leaked speech from one of EA's investor meetings and the guy basically said two things of extreme interest about microtransactions:
1. He said that HE paid a lot of money per year on them(he either said $1500 or $5000, can't remember which)
2. He made a comment about how when the player is in the middle of a firefight and needs to reload, they've got you(ie, charging for bullets).

One of my first thoughts was, you know, if you provide an MMO quality game(ie, a large scale persistent world) like PS2 is doing, I will be willing to pay around the equivalent of what a monthly sub would be, $200 per year or so. And I thought, we aren't all EA CEOs that can spend $5000 or even $1500 per year on bullets.

What do you think about that? Not necessarily that SOE is going to do this, but could that be something to fear elsewhere in the industry?

I think that guy is an idiot who doesn't understand his customers.

Like that CEO, I pay a lot of money for games because its my hobby and I have disposable income. But I didn't always have that. I used to be a poor college kid like most gamers. At one point I relied almost exclusively on my parents for gaming funds, and they didn't just hand over money on request. Today's restricted-income player is tomorrow's disposable income player. Treating everyone like disposable income players is a terrible practice and a failed business model.

In the video I posted above they explain that F2P and microtransactions offer you the flexibility to appeal to players of all spending habits. You'll get the fat cats that can throw down $500, and the guys who only want to spend $5. Today's younger players who don't have disposable income or credit cards will have those things at some point in the future. By trying to swindle players into paying more they're only going to lose would-be paying customers and cause their player base to shrink.

DDO was a subscription-based game that went F2P with a good mictotransaction model. Not only did they manage to have a much larger player base, but they also gained far more revenue than they did as a subscription model. This is all because of increased volume of players and the fact that people are willing to spend money. Some only spent $5, others spent a lot more.

Players are the content <- this should be etched into the entrance hallway of SOE so every employee never forgets it.

[Dartan]

For more insight into their business model, watch this video.
Extra Credits: Microtransactions (The Escapist) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWMBeLrZoyw)

Great video, everyone involved should watch it.

[Fanglord]

Even if they add pay to win, so what? Its functionally identical to having a subscription, with the exception that you are still able to play if you choose not to pay, even if disadvantaged, instead of being unable to play at all.

The worry about 'pay to win' reaches completely irrational levels.

Whilst entirely true, its a bit deceitful; like the saying goes, you can attract more flys with honey than vinegar. More people are likely to spend more money over a a period of time if they are small 1/2 dollar transactions, as opposed to being practically forced into buying larger priced items to have any competitive edge.

I know personally I actually like supporting games if I believe they are trying to be fair.

[KTNApollo]

Even if they add pay to win, so what? Its functionally identical to having a subscription, with the exception that you are still able to play if you choose not to pay, even if disadvantaged, instead of being unable to play at all.

The worry about 'pay to win' reaches completely irrational levels.

No. The worry about P2W games is very real, and it's a very big deal. P2W kills free to play games. Ever played APB? One of the worst offenders of P2W. The game was amazing, I loved it, but then I got stomped all day by people that spent real money to unlock stronger weapons and rocket launchers, while I had to grind for hours or even days to unlock the weapons for only 30 days. Completely ridiculous, and it killed the game for me. (Especially since the permanent gun unlocks were sometimes $50).

[lolroflroflcake]

F2P is actually more profitable in the long run then a subscription service because people tend to spend more when they actually spend money on the game where as the the subscription is just a fixed price each month.

[maradine]

Two words. Farm Cash.

Sony's gonna do just fine.

[Hyiero]

I have no doubt they thought long and hard about how they want to implement micro-transactions and Matt has said many times LoL has been a huge influence on how they want to do their system. League doesn't sell power and everything you can get with money you can get with time except skins/boosts, and this is the way I see planetside 2 going. And there is no denying that league has been very successful in terms of making money

[Sledgecrushr]

Im willing to spend a lot of money to get my max to look similar to this dude.



http://images.wikia.com/warhammer40k/images/e/e1/Salamanders_Chaplain_Termi.jpg

[Logri]

After hearing Higby talk about micro transactions, and the way he talked out it, I'm pretty confident they are on top of their game.

At present I'm not concerned at all.
(never know what could happen along the line though)

[nomotog]

There is a little worry about pay to win. It would be a really stupid move and that's why I don't think they will do it.

Now when it comes to funding the game with customization, Ya they totally can do that. PS2 even has a advantage in this department. The huge number of things you can customize means people will be buying things well after the first few months. Then when people have bought up all of the lightning's hood ornaments, you just release a new vehicle for people to pimp out.

[Fanglord]

Just gotta hope they dont 'Tribes' it.

[nomotog]

Just gotta hope they dont 'Tribes' it.

What's wrong with tribes?

[Sledgecrushr]

Tribes has introduced several new weapons to the game. They are all overpriced and overpowered.

[SpcFarlen]

Tribes has introduced several new weapons to the game. They are all overpriced and overpowered.

Until the nerf. They did okay on the latest (thank god).

But ya people are more willing to spend 15 bucks a month to pimp their character out rather than pay to play... to then pimp their character out. Its the whole long term over short term gains thing. People want instant gratification. F2P with micro transactions does that.

Ive already set aside a fund for PS2, partially because if it is good, i want to be able to support them to make it even greater. And having some unique items along the way aint half bad.

I really like the F2P because it also expands the playerbase. A lot of times i had to stop paying for a game, say WoW back in the day, because i needed rent and food money that month. So it allows a much larger audience to play and enjoy.

[Envenom]

Well, someone posted a video in another thread (GDC Pt. 4... I believe) that showed off a few clips from the in-game store. From the footage shown the prices ranged from 250-550 in station cash. Station cash = 100 points = $1 USD.

So from that model most of the weapons shown in the video were roughly $2.50 -$5.50. That seems reasonable to me.

[kaffis]

Also, SOE are not new to f2p

DCUO to name but only one
DCUO, Everquest, Everquest 2, Free Realms, Clone Wars Adventures (I think?), and soon to be Vanguard...

Yeah, SOE has some successful F2P experience, so I wouldn't worry too much about whether they'll be able to capitalize well on a monetization scheme.

[The Kush]

Even if they add pay to win, so what? Its functionally identical to having a subscription, with the exception that you are still able to play if you choose not to pay, even if disadvantaged, instead of being unable to play at all.

The worry about 'pay to win' reaches completely irrational levels.

I disagree. Money shouldn't be a factor in a competitive game.

[Bags]

I disagree. Money shouldn't be a factor in a competitive game.

Well, considering almost every game costs money bar piracy... it kinda is.

[Gandhi]

All they need to do is add crates and keys, with a 0.1% chance of a super rare cosmetic item. It worked in TF2, it worked in STO, it worked in DOTA 2, it works everywhere. People go nuts over them crates.

[Dreamcast]

I see no problem...Is league of Legends in a MMOFPS.


Their is nothing unbalanced about it league of legends...Im guessing it will be the same for planetside.....Good players could get all the stuff people buy....and Skill is what truly matters, not how much money u spent.


League does $1 million tournaments...They are doing a crapload of money...Im sure Planetside 2, would make a lot of money if people actually get the game and like it.

[ITOS]

For more insight into their business model, watch this video.
Extra Credits: Microtransactions (The Escapist) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWMBeLrZoyw)

This is a great video that address everything concerning F2P except one thing. The greatest threat I see to PS2 being profitable on customization and xp boosters would be the first hurdle a player faces: registering in the store.

This was briefly mentioned in the video but no real method for encouraging people to take that first step was suggested, it was merely hinted that players might eventually get motivated enough to do it. That, to me, isn't good enough. But before I suggest a solution I want to say:

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY
DO NOT FORCE US TO REGISTER A CREDIT CARD TO PLAY

I'm not saying it would be without advantages but it scares away a lot of potential conte... I mean, players. Instead you should "pay" players to register in the store. Give them a free booster for a week. Make sure that there is no reason NOT to register in the store. Once they are in they are much much more likely to spend money, as the video said.

And don't advertise it, that just makes you seem desperate. Make it a "tip of the day" or something.

[Aaramus]

F2P seems to be where the market is heading towards at the moment from what I've seen. There more of an incentive to pay when you are actually going to get something back rather than just access to the game.

I think its safe to say that players would rather pay £10 a month to make their character look unique and get some cool looking skinsm than just pay for the access to the game itself and nothing else.

[Dagron]

it scares away a lot of potential conte... I mean, players.
So true.

Instead you should "pay" players to register in the store. Give them a free booster for a week. Make sure that there is no reason NOT to register in the store. Once they are in they are much much more likely to spend money, as the video said.
Smart, it's a way to get those of us who are a little agoraphobic to come out of the house.

[SKYeXile]

You guys are free to p(l)ay whatever way you like.

[Sabot]

I'm not worried... I remember Higby saying that, regarding subscriptions "we don't do that anymore." Which would imply that they really have proof that F2P is more profitable... and the only way it can be more profitable, is they have fair and reasonable micro-trasactions.

Basically.. they look at what EA does, and do the exact opposite. :P

[That one noob]

Im willing to spend a lot of money to get my max to look similar to this dude.



http://images.wikia.com/warhammer40k/images/e/e1/Salamanders_Chaplain_Termi.jpg

Needs more dakka.

[CutterJohn]

I disagree. Money shouldn't be a factor in a competitive game.

Neither should levels and experience.

And I'm not saying I support it. Just tone down the hyperbole.

[Antivide]

If they make certs such a grind to get that you're better off paying money, I'm jumping ship.

Not saying they will, just threatening that I will.

F2P games have burned a lot of people, even those that spend money on them.

[Fafnir]

If they make certs such a grind to get that you're better off paying money, I'm jumping ship.

Not saying they will, just threatening that I will.

F2P games have burned a lot of people, even those that spend money on them.

The good sign is, that they are looking at League of Legends F2P model. That game really has good balance, when it comes to grinding IP (F2P cash). There were some issues with expensive rune pages and there are issues now with increased initial cost of champions, but no one who is actively playing has any good reason to complain. Hell, they even give refunds, if you don't like what you bought for real money (one time only though).

[Kalbuth]

If they make certs such a grind to get that you're better off paying money, I'm jumping ship.

Not saying they will, just threatening that I will.

F2P games have burned a lot of people, even those that spend money on them.

They have to, otherwise nobody would buy their stuff. Who would be idiotic enough to pay for something they could get for free without effort?
Of course it's going to be better off paying money. The question is, by what margin?

As stated above, Tribes:Ascend isn't too bad, but the prices are too high.
The XP levels and time taken without paying is very long, a little less if you bought at least something once (you get a permanent +50% XP boost the first time you buy smtg), which make people pay something.
Issue being, prices are far too high.

The problem is not that it's gonna be better to pay or not. It should be better to pay.
The "problem" or lack thereof, is how much money is going to be needed to get past the grind?

The way I take F2P games : I paid 15 bucks per month on PS1, that's the max level I intend to pay on PS2. And that's a lot of money compared to usual pay2play games. PS2 is going to murder the money I spent on Skyrim or that I intend to spend on ArmA3.
If for this, I can't have much in-game, I don't think PS2 will last long for me