Potential For Selling Pay To Win [Archive]

p0intman

2012-06-04, 07:50 PM

From the FB app regarding teir 2 rewards:
1 Boost Implant Pack
This Boost Implant Pack will increase the rate at which you earn experience and resources for a period of time. What’s in the Pack?

This Boost Implant Pack contains:
Experience Amplifier (x3)
Resource Amplifier (x3)

I am an extremist when it comes to what an advantage is with regards to micro-transactions. These implants are confirmed to exist in one form or another, regardless of if they persist after death or not, it is an advantage that others who do not participate will not receive, unless SOE decides to sell them for station cash. They have said that station cash only will be cosmetic, but what they have not said is if you will be able to bypass limits other players have because they do not purchase them.

Any experience or resource boost is an advantage and should not be sold for any reason for anything other than in-game resources. This is in effect paying to gain an advantage, however slight, and should not be tolerated if it comes to pass.

Virulence

2012-06-04, 07:54 PM

They never said that store items will be exclusively cosmetic.

They've confirmed in the past that store items will provide cosmetic options as well as convenience benefits - specifically boosts and being able to unlock items in game with station cash. This is how most F2P games work.

Bags

2012-06-04, 07:54 PM

League does this, they like league.

Ergo, it's gonna happen.

I never needed boosts for league, and my solo queue elo was ~2k pre-rank mode (you could check with some txt file).

Zulthus

2012-06-04, 07:55 PM

Whatever, people have money, let them spend it. PS2 has to survive on something. It's not selling power, you still have to play in order to get cert points/experience points.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 07:55 PM

League does this, they like league.

Ergo, it's gonna happen.

That is paying to win then. Completely contradictory to what Higby has said.

Whatever, people have money, let them spend it. PS2 has to survive on something. It's not selling power, you still have to play in order to get cert points/experience points.

Does not matter, its an advantage that is being sold for real world cash.

maradine

2012-06-04, 07:57 PM

Paying to advance 50% faster is not paying to win. If people want to trade ducats for time, let 'em.

Winfernal

2012-06-04, 07:59 PM

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=711404&postcount=49

The rewards need to motivate folks to participate so we had to go somewhat. The items will not give any type of power boost so it's completely voluntary.

There are a couple of minor bugs we are looking into right now. Thanks for your patience and participation.

Nobel

2012-06-04, 07:59 PM

Advantage is in no way being sold.

Convenience is being sold, this the ABSOLUTE right way to do it.

There are no gates prohibiting anyone from any part of the game. You might have to work twice as hard to get there without paying any money; but its an entirely reasponable way to do things.

I for one, am glad to see these.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 07:59 PM

Paying to advance 50% faster is not paying to win. If people want to trade ducats for time, let 'em.
That faster advancement will turn into being more diverse than others earlier than they otherwise would be, being able to do more sooner is an advantage especially in a shooter. In essence, I can do things before you can because I have paid real world cash to make it happen.

Soothsayer

2012-06-04, 07:59 PM

You have to pay to win in PS1 as well. If you didn't pay, there was no way you would have even the most remote chance of winning.

Brusi

2012-06-04, 08:01 PM

I'm going to buy the shit out of those booster implants. If anyone accuses me of cheating or paying to win then they can suck a big one, lol!

In fact if anyone thinks that a free-to-play game can survive and thrive on purely cosmetic items, then they are fucking retarded. Don't make a big deal out of it, selling power is almost the grayest area there is in gaming. It's very subjective.

As long as the game is fun for free-to-play gamers then mission accomplished.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 08:01 PM

You have to pay to win in PS1 as well. If you didn't pay, there was no way you would have even the most remote chance of winning.

The only real way to win in PS1 was to not log in.

Advantage is in no way being sold.

Convenience is being sold, this the ABSOLUTE right way to do it.

There are no gates prohibiting anyone from any part of the game. You might have to work twice as hard to get there without paying any money; but its an entirely reasponable way to do things.

I for one, am glad to see these.

Convenience imo would be a slightly faster respawn time. An advantage is anything in which I have a direct edge over others in such that it changes if I were to win an engagement or not.

maradine

2012-06-04, 08:03 PM

An advantage is anything in which I have a direct edge over others in such that it changes if I were to win an engagement or not.

Excellent - we all agree!

CuddlyChud

2012-06-04, 08:03 PM

diLLa

2012-06-04, 08:04 PM

The only real way to win in PS1 was to not log in.

Convenience imo would be a slightly faster respawn time. An advantage is anything in which I have a direct edge over others in such that it changes if I were to win an engagement or not.

On the scale of Planetside where hundreds of people are battling eachother, 1 player having an extra unlocked cert is hardly going to change anything.

CutterJohn

2012-06-04, 08:04 PM

Paying to advance 50% faster is not paying to win. If people want to trade ducats for time, let 'em.

Thats different, because that was a subscription, see, and clearly naming it something else makes it perfectly acceptable. :lol:

Point. They've never said you won't have advantages from paying. They've said there won't be anything you can buy that is unavailable in game. No super gun or super ammo or super tank in the cash store. Every vehicle, class, item, cert, etc, can be gotten by all players, regardless of whether they've paid or not. Paying helps you get them faster.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 08:04 PM

Excellent - we all agree!

If that's your definition of power, than PS1 was a huge offender when it came to giving veterans too much power relative to newbies.

The difference is I put in several years to get where I did. I did not pay real world cash to achieve it beyond the sub cost, something which everyone paid and made it moot.

Ieyasu

2012-06-04, 08:05 PM

That faster advancement will turn into being more diverse than others earlier than they otherwise would be, being able to do more sooner is an advantage especially in a shooter. In essence, I can do things before you can because I have paid real world cash to make it happen.

Theyre not making Planetside 2 as a charity drive. Its purpose for SOE is to turn a profit. There is nothing someone can pay to do that a non paying player could not they just have access to opening it up sooner or at quicker rate. if that is unacceptable for you Im sure the PS2 Team is ok with you being upset.

SpcFarlen

2012-06-04, 08:05 PM

I have many friends that never payed in LoL. I never did either. It just meant you had to put more time in the game to max out.

Paying to win is to have a model where you are left with no choice but to pay to get unlocks. For instance, look at tribes, some of the weapons cost 100k to get. Well thats only 100 games. In a week you have that item easily. Sure you can fork over 10 bucks and get it now, but by no means are you winning because a level 1 can still kill you.

Boosters arent pay to win if the mechanics arent there to make a level 30 (random level) more powerful than a level 1. Until you can prove that the max rank has such a clear advantage over a low ranked character, there is no problem.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 08:07 PM

Theyre not making Planetside 2 as a charity drive. Its purpose for SOE is to turn a profit. There is nothing someone can pay to do that a non paying player could they just have access to opening it up sooner or at quicker rate. if that is unacceptable for you Im sure the PS2 Team is ok with you being upset.

It doesn't change that it is contrary to what has been previously said. We apparently define paying to win differently.

Virulence

2012-06-04, 08:09 PM

It doesn't change that it is contrary to what has been previously said. We apparently define paying to win differently.

"Paying to win" in the F2P market is defined as, "Selling in-game items exclusively for real currency that are directly, statistically more powerful than anything that can be unlocked by only playing the game."

Convenience is not included in that.

CuddlyChud

2012-06-04, 08:09 PM

The difference is I put in several years to get where I did. I did not pay real world cash to achieve it beyond the sub cost, something which everyone paid and made it moot.

So its ok for people to spend time to get a boost in power, but not money? And if that's ok because everyone had to pay the sub cost, than you could argue that everyone could just buy the booster. No doubt it would be cheaper than 15$ a month.

NEWSKIS

2012-06-04, 08:10 PM

CutterJohn

2012-06-04, 08:13 PM

It doesn't change that it is contrary to what has been previously said. We apparently define paying to win differently.

You define it strangely. Every single F2P game out there has boosters. They've explicitely said they won't be selling wtfpwn weapons. That is how the devs are defining power. Its also how everyone, except you, defines 'selling power'.

Bottom line, you're the weird one. This is quite normal, expected, and apparently a surprise only to you. Also, we've known they would do this, officially, for months.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 08:14 PM

Truthfully its no different than being at a disadvantage from starting PS2 two months after release. You also have that disadvantage even without boosts. Should everyone that starts playing day 1 not be able to progress until the last new player joins? Every game has that whether its items or just knowing how to play the game. Also should you have some sort of penalty if you have more time to play than someone else?

tbh, if you have more time than I do, fuck it you deserve it. Real world cash though shouldn't be a factor at all. And holy shit, Newskis, long time no see.

So its ok for people to spend time to get a boost in power, but not money? And if that's ok because everyone had to pay the sub cost, than you could argue that everyone could just buy the booster. No doubt it would be cheaper than 15$ a month.

Like I said above: If you've got more time and game knowledge than I do, fuck it, you deserve it.

You define it strangely. Every single F2P game out there has boosters. They've explicitely said they won't be selling wtfpwn weapons. That is how the devs are defining power. Its also how everyone, except you, defines 'selling power'.

Bottom line, you're the weird one. This is quite normal, expected, and apparently a surprise only to you. Also, we've known they would do this, officially, for months.

An advantage is anything in which I have a direct edge over others in such that it changes if I were to win an engagement or not.

This includes faster advancement, because you can unlock things sooner than others who do not pay. Like I said, convenience would be a faster respawn time, or a faster pace at which things I spawn (vehicles, etc) materialise.

Winfernal

2012-06-04, 08:17 PM

You define it strangely. Every single F2P game out there has boosters. They've explicitely said they won't be selling wtfpwn weapons. That is how the devs are defining power. Its also how everyone, except you, defines 'selling power'.

Bottom line, you're the weird one. This is quite normal, expected, and apparently a surprise only to you. Also, we've known they would do this, officially, for months.

Also. Ranking up in this game gives you "options/trade-offs" instead of more power. Atleast in the weaponry. There is no uber-weapon at the top-rank, for example.

So what if someone decides to pay for boosters? I will still be able to kill them if i'm a better player. I just can't see the "pay-to-win" factor here? As the advantage is... minor, if not non-existant.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 08:19 PM

Also. Ranking up in this game gives you "options/trade-offs" instead of more power. Atleast in the weaponry. There is no uber-weapon at the top-rank, for example.

So what if someone decides to pay for boosters? I will still be able to kill them if i'm a better player. I just can't see the "pay-to-win" factor here? As the advantage is... minor, if not non-existant.
Means I can achieve a 20 percent power difference, as they've put it, faster than you. Meaning, I have an advantage even if only for a time, over those who don't pay for it.

With an XP boost you still have to play to get the actual XP. The bigger problems can arise when they decide to start selling weapon packs and things like that. Tribes Ascend has already shown this. SOE is not Hi-Rez, but this is what they're essentially doing:

Their game is F2P, but you can spend money to boost XP gain or unlock loadouts and weapons instantly. You can unlock with XP, and with 'station cash'. It becomes interesting when they add new content. So far, every content package they released has included deliberately overpowered weapons. The Plasma Gun was initially so humongously overpowered (it was essentially a 3-shot kill weapon with high ROF which was given to a class that uses it as a secondary, next to an SMG - weapons that were already overpowered by themselves - and which anyone who's even a little good at Tribes will barely miss with) that you can only conclude that they're trying to cash in on impulse-buyers. They did nerf it eventually, but because it was so good, a lot of players decided to buy it right away. They also set up the pricings so that you will always be stuck with a significant remainder of in-game gold after buying anything, so it's pretty clear they're trying to rip people off.

That is not a label you want to have when you claim that you're doing F2P-that-aren't-P2W games. You have very little room for error, because unlike with games where you only pay for the box, the revenue doesn't mostly come from the first 2 months of sales. It's spread out over the game's entire lifetime, so if you screw it up in the beginning and people lose trust, they're going to stop buying, meaning you might not even break even with the development and marketing cost.

Unfortunately I now also expect SOE to be going in the same direction eventually. I want to believe F2P works with no strings attached, but I have yet to see it work in a way that is superior to a subscription or box (for customers, not studio's and publishers).

And that there is why I take such an extreme stance, because it'll eventually come down to, 'lol i have more money than you, have fun with your respawn timer'. I have no room for this and not a single thing is different to me about boosters.

Think I'm wrong? Read this. (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-03-28-cousins-predicts-free-to-play-equivalent-of-skyrim-in-two-years)

Fanglord

2012-06-04, 08:22 PM

The only real way to win in PS1 was to not log in.

Convenience imo would be a slightly faster respawn time. An advantage is anything in which I have a direct edge over others in such that it changes if I were to win an engagement or not.

You do realise that a faster respawn time would be an unfair advantage, compared to the convenience of levelling up faster. Leveling up faster is only a convenience as it does not lock out upgrades to those who don't level as fast, therefore everyone has the potential to have the same items at some point.

Stardouser

2012-06-04, 08:22 PM

Even if there are advantages for dollars, so what? If the game has to be a mandatory subscription, it can't exist, and we are stuck with other crap games. If they only sell cosmetic stuff, it can't exist, and we are stuck with other crap games.

Besides, think of it this way: Free 2 play is really a bad choice of words by the gaming companies. It should be called no money down 2 play. Standard price for a game is $60 per year(ie, CoD or BF's annual rat race), so, you should be willing to pay that much per year throughout PS2's 5 year plan.

So, while someone who pays $60 for stuff might get a big headstart on someone who pays $0, the advantages someone who pays $120 MIGHT be a lot less, comparatively, than the guy who paid $60 per year. So, if you're expecting to pay zero, you are the content and not the customer anyway.

QuantumMechanic

2012-06-04, 08:23 PM

There aren't going to be any weapons that can exclusively be purchased in the item shop for real world money.

You *can* purchase weapons there with station cash, but the same weapons can also be purchased via in-game generated resources (currency) (Auraxium as I recall). The station cash option just saves you time.

You can purchase exp boosting consumables for station cash (not sure if you can with Auraxium as well or not), but again it's saving you time.

It's not like I can buy a sniper rifle for $10 USD that has the longest range in the game, so I can hit targets that can't hit me back.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 08:24 PM

You do realise that a faster respawn time would be an unfair advantage, compared to the convenience of levelling up faster. Leveling up faster is only a convenience as it does not lock out upgrades to those who don't level as fast, therefore everyone has the potential to have the same items at some point.

No it isnt, because it does not have the power to drastically change the outcome of a fight unless used on an extremely large scale, of which both sides are likely to be using it if its that widely accepted as acceptable and affordable.

Fenrys

2012-06-04, 08:25 PM

I disagree. I think it's OK to sell xp/resource bonuses, so long as what they provide can also be gotten for free in-game.

Pay-2-Win is selling guns that do more damage, faster vehicles, and better armor.

The effects of boosters can be had for free by simply playing the game longer. Paying players don't get any advantage that a free player can never have.

Hamma

2012-06-04, 08:25 PM

p0intman has been trying to convince everyone that an XP Boost is selling power for many months now. It still isn't selling power.

Pay-2-Win is selling guns that do more damage, faster vehicles, and better armor.

The effects of boosters can be had for free by simply playing the game longer. Paying players don't get any advantage that a free player can never have.
This, this exactly.

Fafnir

2012-06-04, 08:25 PM

It's the downside of F2P system and you simply have to get over it. Boosters are present in every F2P game I can think of. Personally I don't care about them, because eventually I'll get every cert and weapon I need by playing. I'd rather spend station cash to get visual enhancements, than boosters I don't need.

Winfernal

2012-06-04, 08:26 PM

So, if you're expecting to pay zero, you are the content and not the customer anyway.

Exactly.

They're not running this game on "leechers", they need paying customers to keep it running.

Would they run this game purely on skins and cosmetic stuff like headligh colours? Or do we actually need these boosters for the survival of this game? Hmm. I believe so.

Point is. If you like the game, pay up. :)

Btw, hi Stardouser. Long time, no see. :D

p0intman

2012-06-04, 08:26 PM

p0intman has been trying to convince everyone that an XP Boost is selling power for many months now. It still isn't selling power.

oh hey, look at what I went and dug up?

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=37292

edit: lol contradicted myself. derp. whatever. I cant possibly be convinced that micro transactions are a good thing.

kaffis

2012-06-04, 08:27 PM

The resource boost doesn't thrill me. That says to me "resource denial tactics work better if your opponent isn't paying," and that edges quite close to the line at the very least.

Experience boosts aren't an issue for me. Experience will vary person to person based on time invested anyways. It's a way for somebody with less time to mitigate their limited time with some cash, and that's fine.

See, the difference, to me, is that resources are a consumable resource, whereas experience can be abstracted as a straight-up time invested metric. Money = time is okay. Money = not running out of something when forcing the other guy to run out is a valid and encouraged strategy is not. The only thing saving resource boosts from making me upset is that we don't know how strongly a boost can/will tilt the ability to deprive your opponent of them. If it's a drop in the bucket when full-on denial tactics are being used (because, say, the resources for fighting aren't very big in relation to the resources for holding territory, so there's not much to amplify when your critical territory type is being denied), it could work out alright. We'll see in beta.

And, p0intman, "faster respawn time" is anything BUT convenience. That's amplifying the raw press of the zerg, which is about as straight-up power as you can sell in an FPS with death mechanics, short of giving people preposterous weaponry.

TeaReks

2012-06-04, 08:27 PM

Thats still not pay to win.

Pay to win is if they sold an upgraded reaver with better engines and smart missiles that was only available through the in game market.

The outcome of a one on one engagement wont be affected by an experience boost especially since most of the unlocks are side grades anyway.

In all the f2p games that I have played none of the players really ever care about boosts like this. The real fights start if gear or upgrades are market exclusive.

Look at World of Tanks. Do you ever see anyone complain about premium account status? No, but there are constant fights over the effectiveness of premium tanks.

This game needs our money to survive. The subscription model, although a nice paywall, is dead. I mean look at APB, it still is riddle with hackers but it makes buko bucks because of the real money market.

If Planetside 2 is as good as it looks they will rake in the money with the f2p model. That is really what we want because whats good for them is good for our hobby. As long as there is money from the game they can keep putting money back in.

Hamma

2012-06-04, 08:28 PM

You dug up a thread to prove my point? Nice work. :lol:

p0intman

2012-06-04, 08:30 PM

You dug up a thread to prove my point? Nice work. :lol:

tl;dr: imo, its anything other than a different skin/color for anything (Vanity). all of the above is considered, again imo, selling power for real cash. period.

That means that yes, convenience is paying to win. A lesser form of it, but it does not matter whatsofuckingever.

The resource boost doesn't thrill me. That says to me "resource denial tactics work better if your opponent isn't paying," and that edges quite close to the line at the very least.

Experience boosts aren't an issue for me. Experience will vary person to person based on time invested anyways. It's a way for somebody with less time to mitigate their limited time with some cash, and that's fine.

See, the difference, to me, is that resources are a consumable resource, whereas experience can be abstracted as a straight-up time invested metric. Money = time is okay. Money = not running out of something when forcing the other guy to run out is a valid and encouraged strategy is not. The only thing saving resource boosts from making me upset is that we don't know how strongly a boost can/will tilt the ability to deprive your opponent of them. If it's a drop in the bucket when full-on denial tactics are being used (because, say, the resources for fighting aren't very big in relation to the resources for holding territory, so there's not much to amplify when your critical territory type is being denied), it could work out alright. We'll see in beta.

And, p0intman, "faster respawn time" is anything BUT convenience. That's amplifying the raw press of the zerg, which is about as straight-up power as you can sell in an FPS with death mechanics, short of giving people preposterous weaponry.
you're right, it is, if its used on a scale of hundreds of people. in that case, its nullified by the fact that the other side is just as likely to be doing so. if its something that not many people use, its power is drastically reduced and the effect becomes moot, especially if the implants are destroyed upon cloning ala EVE.

Stardouser

2012-06-04, 08:31 PM

Winfernal

2012-06-04, 08:32 PM

tl;dr: imo, its anything other than a different skin/color for anything (Vanity). all of the above is considered, again imo, selling power for real cash. period.

That means that yes, convenience is paying to win. A lesser form of it, but it does not matter whatsofuckingever.

But the thing is. I don't believe, with the new engine, the hard work, everything. PS2, like we're seeing it forming up now, wouldn't survive with the core PS playerbase and a monthly sub only.

This community needs to grow, for the franchise to survive in it's new glory. And when it's free, it's easier for people to atleast try it out.

So, some sacrifices has to be done to get this game up and moving. I don't care for these minor advantages. As long as there's no UBERweapons in store, go ahead.

It's an MMOFPS, it's needed in the modern gaming world!

ZeroArmada

2012-06-04, 08:32 PM

If we start seeing cash exclusive weapons, then we may have a valid argument. I have seen so many games come and gone from the Asian and the newly rising American F2P market. Most if not all criticism towards this pay model stems from cash exclusive weapons, which are usually leaps and bounds greater than their free counter parts. If anything these items are pay for convenience.

If we do every see cash weapons, armor, or vehicles that provide stat bonuses that are unobtainable in-game, than we could attest that PS2 may be trending towards a pay to win game.

Virulence

2012-06-04, 08:32 PM

you're right, it is, if its used on a scale of hundreds of people. in that case, its nullified by the fact that the other side is just as likely to be doing so. if its something that not many people use, its power is drastically reduced.

By this logic, selling power is okay because hey the guys you're playing against are going to just buy power too so they can have the same advantages and then everyone is on even footing!

SpcFarlen

2012-06-04, 08:35 PM

If they do anything other than what they are doing the game can't exist. People won't pay mandatory $15 per month. Is that what you want?

Edit: Enough people won't pay $15 per month.

Doesnt really matter what he wants, no offence towards ya p0int. It has been stated it will be f2p, preaching to the choir at this point.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 08:37 PM

By this logic, selling power is okay because hey the guys you're playing against are going to just buy power too so they can have the same advantages and then everyone is on even footing!
when you talk about the 'raw press of the zerg' please observe that 'the zerg' these days can't capture a tower where they outnumber the occupants 50-to-1. you're starting to actually argue on raw number theory-crafting and demographics which is completely beside the point.

Doesnt really matter what he wants, no offence towards ya p0int. It has been stated it will be f2p, preaching to the choir at this point.
Derp. Don't think I know you, so uh.. can't take offense?

Toppopia

2012-06-04, 08:37 PM

As long as they don't sell stuff that can't be accessed in game, like a super awesome rocket launcher that shoots 10 rockets that break off into 100 rockets that home on every target in 100 metre radius, but boosters is just people getting somewhere faster, that won't impact my ability to kill them, they will still die to my bullets.

Winfernal

2012-06-04, 08:41 PM

Whatever they call it is irrelevant. F2P/P2W distinction can be a very grey area (see T:A again, Firefall will probably have same issues). They can say something now, but what will happen a year after launch if their revenue stagnates?

We don't know anything about whats going to happen. Not even at launch.

An mmofps is new to the common gamer today, we can't possibly predict anything until we're seeing it with our own eyes.

Virulence

2012-06-04, 08:44 PM

when you talk about the 'raw press of the zerg' please observe that 'the zerg' these days can't capture a tower where they outnumber the occupants 50-to-1. you're starting to actually argue on raw number theory-crafting and demographics which is completely beside the point.

You're saying that selling power is okay because when everyone buys the power that's being sold nobody is at an advantage, which completely destroys your initial argument. I have no love for the F2P business model, but I have nothing but disdain for idiots.

Anyway, http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win

That's a lengthy - and very interesting - presentation about the F2P/P2W business model. It's been proven to be an effective business model for making substantial money off of an online game, regardless of a very vocal outcry against "paying to win" in various aspects. It isn't going to go away and stop being used unless (or until) a more profitable business model is designed, or consumers stop spending money on these companies.

This is why SOE is using it for Planetside 2.

Toppopia

2012-06-04, 08:45 PM

That's exactly why I'm doubt.

What will happen when Planetside 2 as a F2P with XP boosts game doesn't live up to the expectations of upper management?

Then all hardcore fans will donate $10, if we get the numbers we hope for that is alot of money. Especially if SOE says "Ok, to keep this game F2P, we need a donation."

Then boom, it says F2P, hopefully.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 08:47 PM

You're saying that selling power is okay because when everyone buys the power that's being sold nobody is at an advantage, which completely destroys your initial argument. I have no love for the F2P business model, but I have nothing but disdain for idiots.

Anyway, http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win

That's a lengthy - and very interesting - presentation about the F2P/P2W business model. It's been proven to be an effective business model for making substantial money off of an online game, regardless of a very vocal outcry against "paying to win" in various aspects. It isn't going to go away and stop being used unless (or until) a more profitable business model is designed, or consumers stop spending money on these companies.

This is why SOE is using it for Planetside 2.
There has to be a fallacy with that, because thats putting words in my mouth. If I had my way, to be very clear, micro-transactions simply wouldn't exist. period. To say I think any of it is OK is stupid, but kind of like political elections.. some things are worse than others. I'd prefer a few people have a slightly smaller respawn time, and not by much, than an outright advancement boost. But, again.. if it were up to me.. none of it would exist.

Fafnir

2012-06-04, 08:48 PM

Then all hardcore fans will donate $10, if we get the numbers we hope for that is alot of money. Especially if SOE says "Ok, to keep this game F2P, we need a donation."

Then boom, it says F2P, hopefully.

That's not going to happen.

EDIT: I meant, that SOE won't ask, not that hardcore fans wouldn't donate.

I'd prefer a few people have a slightly smaller respawn time, and not by much, than an outright advancement boost.

Don't give them ideas such as this, because they may use both at the same time.

Winfernal

2012-06-04, 08:50 PM

It's either F2P, or no sequel at all. Atleast not with this quality.

Quoting myself here:

I'd imagine them trying to maintain this new game with it's new engine with the old playerbase. That wouldn't work, to say the least. It's to underground.

But if you expected the engine and graphics from the original PS, you'd have all your fun in PS2 with the original playerbase. This is called branching out, or surviving.

I'd guess you PS vets wanted a sequel with updated engine/graphics, right?

Stamping a "15$ per month" sign on sequel of a game many people never even heard of back in the days, that's too much of a risk if you ask me.

= F2P, growing community. Which also equals some "sacrifices", like these micro-transactions.

That's life. Get some, lose some. I'm sure we'll all enjoy PS2. Both vets and newbs.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 08:52 PM

It's either F2P, or no sequel at all. Atleast not with this quality.

Quoting myself here:

I'd imagine them trying to maintain this new game with it's new engine with the old playerbase. That wouldn't work, to say the least. It's to underground.

But if you expected the engine and graphics from the original PS, you'd have all your fun in PS2 with the original playerbase. This is called branching out, or surviving.

I'd guess you PS vets wanted a sequel with updated engine/graphics, right?
Hell, I'd have been fine with the same exact gfx and engine. Fuck, don't even make a sequel, just change the engine and shit.

Winfernal

2012-06-04, 08:54 PM

Hell, I'd have been fine with the same exact gfx and engine.

While you're saying this now (and i'll even believe you.).

I don't think most people would be satisfied with a sequel of Planetside in 2012 with 2003-graphics and gameplay. Wash away some nostalgia first, and tell me again how you'd be fine with the old engine.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 08:55 PM

It's how F2P can regress into P2W that people are afraid of.

holy fucking shit, someone gets it.

Winfernal

2012-06-04, 08:58 PM

The issue isn't F2P. Everyone has know it for years now and if they'd really have any problem with it they wouldn't be on this forum, following the game's development. It's how F2P can regress into P2W that people are afraid of.

And this is obvious with every single F2P title out there. Everyone has that fear...

But i'm telling you, it's either back to the original PS, or hoping for no "P2W-factors" in PS2 while it's F2P. A monthly sub wouldn't be enough for the game to survive.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 08:59 PM

And this is obvious with every single F2P title out there. Everyone has that fear...

But i'm telling you, it's either back to the original PS, or hoping for no "P2W-factors" in PS2 while it's F2P.
....

*facepalm*

You don't see it do you?

THEY (THE INDUSTRY) HAVE ALREADY STATED THAT THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE THEY WANT TO GO, FULL STOP. ITS BEEN STATED BY MORE THAN ONE PERSON AND ON MORE THAN ONE INSTANCE. THIS IS A PROMISE THAT HIGBY NOR SOE WILL EVER POSSIBLY KEEP. IT IS FALSE TO BELIEVE THEY WILL NOT SELL WEAPONS FOR REAL CASH.

There. its in fucking capslock for you.

Virulence

2012-06-04, 09:00 PM

Watch that presentation I posted (http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win) - it covers the progression of a F2P game from just selling boosts, customization, and convenience to a direct P2W game because the game just wasn't making enough money off of the former, and they made their shop significantly more profitable by going P2W.

You can also look at the way LoL has handled it. They haven't released a new champion for less than 6,300 IP in a very long time, and I guarantee that's because they make a significant amount of money off of people buying RP for a new champion that looks really cool that they want to play to pick up that champion on day one, and they don't play enough to save up enough IP to buy that champion with that.

Psi

2012-06-04, 09:01 PM

So. Anyone have some insight on how I can block Pointman's threads from showing for me? They seem to be a constant waste.

Winfernal

2012-06-04, 09:02 PM

....

*facepalm*

You don't see it do you?

THEY (THE INDUSTRY) HAVE ALREADY STATED THAT THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE THEY WANT TO GO, FULL STOP. ITS BEEN STATED BY MORE THAN ONE PERSON AND ON MORE THAN ONE INSTANCE. THIS IS A PROMISE THAT HIGBY NOR SOE WILL EVER POSSIBLY KEEP. IT IS FALSE TO BELIEVE THEY WILL NOT SELL WEAPONS FOR REAL CASH.

There. its in fucking capslock for you.

What?...

I don't get it.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 09:03 PM

Toppopia

2012-06-04, 09:04 PM

I think Higby will want to keep that promise, then along comes the higher ups and force him to do what he doesn't want to do, because Higby doesn't want to see the game turn into something he doesn't like.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 09:05 PM

What?...

I don't get it.
...

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-03-28-cousins-predicts-free-to-play-equivalent-of-skyrim-in-two-years

http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win

Read and watch both.

Winfernal

2012-06-04, 09:05 PM

...

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-03-28-cousins-predicts-free-to-play-equivalent-of-skyrim-in-two-years

http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win

Read and watch both.

It was sarcasm, i do get it.

But oh well, i'll watch it when it's not 4 hours left until my alarm rings. Night, night.

I'll dream about your CAPS-LOCK!

p0intman

2012-06-04, 09:06 PM

So. Anyone have some insight on how I can block Pointman's threads from showing for me? They seem to be a constant waste.
Side of my post.. click ignore.

It was sarcasm, i do get it.

But oh well, i'll watch it when it's not 4 hours left until my alarm rings.

Sarcasm doesnt translate over text due to a lack of vocal tone.

maradine

2012-06-04, 09:07 PM

I'm having great difficulty understanding what the purpose of this thread is. It ain't debate - no one's budging. It ain't warning - we get it. And I'm pretty sure Higby can afford to receive his abuse from trained professionals.

Winfernal

2012-06-04, 09:08 PM

Side of my post.. click ignore.

Sarcasm doesnt translate over text due to a lack of vocal tone.

Didn't you see the "notes" above the letters? It clearly shows my tone being sarcastic... :rolleyes:

p0intman

2012-06-04, 09:09 PM

Didn't you see the "notes" above the letters? It clearly shows my tone being sarcastic... :rolleyes:

No, I didn't buy that windows add on from microsoft or google for chrome.

Toppopia

2012-06-04, 09:11 PM

...

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-03-28-cousins-predicts-free-to-play-equivalent-of-skyrim-in-two-years

http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win

Read and watch both.

Oh boy, a free to play game thats like Skyrim. Can't wait :D

Envenom

2012-06-04, 09:12 PM

p0intman

2012-06-04, 09:14 PM

Oh boy, a free to play game thats like Skyrim. Can't wait :D
you must be trolling me to think its that simple. i don't care very much to write it down plainly, but that isn't the message. the message is next to mandatory pay to win by the time of 3.0. in other words, korea is fucking influencial, more than it should be.

CuddlyChud

2012-06-04, 09:14 PM

I don't understand the point of this post. Are you trying to tell us that P2W is inevitable and therefore we shouldn't waste our time with PS2? Because if that's the case, you should really lead by example.

Virulence

2012-06-04, 09:15 PM

I've seen it so many times that if I have to hear that goddamn british accent again, I'm going to claw my ears out with dull objects.

Durr. See my above post where I pre emptively call smedley and matt higby liars flat out.

Cool, whatever. Higby is not the right person to direct your rage at, even if he's the most visible member of the PS2 development team.

Here're your options to resolve your complaints, probably not to your satisfaction.

1) Don't play Planetside 2 at all because you disagree with the business model.

2) Play Planetside 2 and don't spend any money on it at all because you disagree with the business model.

There have been thousands of rage-filled rants like yours posted on myriad F2P game forums about how it's unfair and how it's not okay to sell these things for real cash, but the companies do it anyway because the internal data they get with regards to the people buying store items says that it is okay and that they're making money off of it - and that they're going to continue making money off of it. Your opinions are, while certainly not unique, irrelevant. Doing one of the above two things would make more of a difference in rebelling against the business model.

IMMentat

2012-06-04, 09:15 PM

For instance, look at tribes, some of the weapons cost 100k to get. Well thats only 100 games. In a week you have that item easily.
Something tells me you don't work long hours or work at all if you can play 14 games of tribes a day.
At an average of 15 minute bouts thats 3-4 hours a day, 24 hours every week to earn a single item, I name that a rip-off.

I maybe play 1-2 hours a day before having other things I need to do (LoL daily, something with friends/family plus house stuff), that makes it around a month of daily play per 100k upgrade.
As for the RMT pricing, Microtransactions should not start at the 2-3 dollar mark (and thats the sale pricing), the clue is in the name.
IMO Hi-Rez make great games with horrible marketplaces and terrible accessibility for casual players. The playerbase becomes stratified after the first month of release due to MMORPG equipment stats. Persistent players end up with many factors more power, health and options than the average player and in a shooter environment that is like handing out a free win.
But I digress.

The ability to buy (reasonably priced) boosters allow casual gamers make up for only having a small ammount of time available to play.
They also let hardcore players max out everything pretty damned quickly, which is one of the reasons rest XP and a daily challenge/quest are great in most Multiplayer games.

If EverQuest2 is anything to go by PS2 marketplace could well start with items at 50-100 SC then better and more impressive stuff around the 3-4k mark.
I just hope that one day F2P devs will realise that nickling and diming the playerbase is encouraged (Basic stuff for pocketchange? Here, take my money!) but hand over fist dollar snatching for every lowly item is bad-form and pisses folk off.

Diversity advancement rather than pure stats boosts (world of tanks i'm looking at you) can allow a casual player specialised in 1-2 areas can compete evenly with any player within those specialist areas. Its the balance of having multiple upgraded/superior items that usually allows long-term players to steamroll fights.
Matt Higby and Co have stated they aim for a 20% total advantage for an experienced player compared to a newbie. Thats weapon, certs, gear, and passive boosts combined.

I pray to God(s):angel::love::devilwink:borg: they pull it off.

FPClark

2012-06-04, 09:16 PM

Toppopia

2012-06-04, 09:20 PM

:huh: All I hear is people who are gonna leach off the games f2p model complaining that someone who is contributing to the games success will be able to level faster...

Guess what. If micro tranactions arnt your thing, dont use them.

It has been stated that every weapon/cert/vehicle in the game will be avaliable to everyone...

This whole thread is silly. Do you honestly expect these people to not try and make money?

I would love to see a game company to make a game because they care about the community and want to see them happy. Probably 90% of the companies only care about money, thats why COD keeps getting remade with basically same graphics, because the company knows that if they do that, they will make lots of money. Sadly most people are money hungry :(

p0intman

2012-06-04, 09:20 PM

SniperSteve

2012-06-04, 09:21 PM

Its not paying to win, because it really doesn't matter to you if player X played 20 hours a week or if they spent $20 to get the XP needed to buy the item in question.

Envenom

2012-06-04, 09:25 PM

:huh: All I hear is people who are gonna leech off the games f2p model complaining that someone who is contributing to the games success will be able to level faster...

This.

FPClark

2012-06-04, 09:26 PM

I would love to see a game company to make a game because they care about the community and want to see them happy. Probably 90% of the companies only care about money, thats why COD keeps getting remade with basically same graphics, because the company knows that if they do that, they will make lots of money. Sadly most people are money hungry :(

I would love to see some millionare hand me keys to his ferrari because he knows it would make me happy.

When was the last time you put time/money/effort into something and then just gave it away to people?

IMMentat

2012-06-04, 09:26 PM

Its not paying to win, because it really doesn't matter to you if player X played 20 hours a week or if they spent $20 to get the XP needed to buy the item in question.

Agreed, but the line between what is a virtual item worth in real money and how much playtime should be needed to unlock said item is a difficult one to find, let alone master. IMO most F2P companies overcharge for most of what they got, mainly because they can get away with it but also because each person values their money differently, a rip-off to one is a worthwhile investment to another.

SpcFarlen

2012-06-04, 09:30 PM

Well, lemmings will lemming, I guess. Take a hint, I don't regard micro-transactions as innovative. I started playing PS1 because the concept was innovative and fun. I regard it as stupid and a product of a market that is completely contrary to gaming in the US and North America.

I'm surrounded by idiots - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xu_6VIZd08)

If it is so contrary to "gaming in the US and North America" why is it also the most succesfull as far as profit goes? Look at Maplestory, its made millions on this with millions of playing in NA. Also look at Tribes:Ascend, same thing.

These models are working because people are more willing to pay for micro transactions than superscription. Thats based on empirical data which all your points are a matter of opinion.

FPClark

2012-06-04, 09:31 PM

Well, lemmings will lemming, I guess. Take a hint, I don't regard micro-transactions as innovative. I started playing PS1 because the concept was innovative and fun. I regard it as stupid and a product of a market that is completely contrary to gaming in the US and North America.

Buy $50 (or whatever your avrage PC game costs in your area) of Station cash and then use it how you see fit.

See thats where micro tranactions work in the players benifit. Instead of paying for the game (which you dont have to do BTW it is OPTIONAL) you are offeded a choice of if/when/where to spend your money.

Either that or pay nothing at all...However if you dont contribute you really have no grounds to complain about anything...At all...Like lag/customer support/ect...You know all the things that come standard when you PAY for a game.

Toppopia

2012-06-04, 09:32 PM

I would love to see some millionare hand me keys to his ferrari because he knows it would make me happy.

When was the last time you put time/money/effort into something and then just gave it away to people?

I gave someone a bag of lollies. Does that count? :D

And I mean make a game with money not in mind, but the community. Which sounds like Planetside 2 is doing. So good job:father:

FPClark

2012-06-04, 09:33 PM

@Elfailo

I have been a sub since sept of 06 TYVM

You're such a putz. I don't know p0intman personally, but I remember his name and thus know that he's been paying for Planetside subs for years. 14.99 a month. It's pathetically desperate to want to portray someone as a leech just because you lack the capacity to understand his actual point.

I dont understand his point but it's not because I lack the capacity...

MonsterBone

2012-06-04, 09:33 PM

Little cry babies that dont pay up are going to get CRUSHED. They also should be greatful to their masters.

SpcFarlen

2012-06-04, 09:35 PM

Little cry babies that dont pay up are going to get CRUSHED. They also should be greatful to their masters.

:rofl: I swear ive laughed at more of your posts than anyone else's sir, thank you.

Brusi

2012-06-04, 09:41 PM

Sarcasm doesnt translate over text due to a lack of vocal tone.

I got it.

I agree that there will be elements of pay to win in PS2. I don't however, entirely subscribe to the fact that it will completely disenfranchise the playerbase to the point that it will harm the game.

I think there is a thin green line, and hopefully SOE has the financial stability to test the waters so to speak and approach the line slowly enough that they can maximise their profits without actually crossing it.

CTheRain

2012-06-04, 09:41 PM

We should limit every player to 10 hours a week so they cannot get ahead of everyone else. You know because progression and unfairness is bad right?

p0intman

2012-06-04, 09:42 PM

@Elfailo

I have been a sub since sept of 06 TYVM

I dont understand his point but it's not because I lack the capacity...
I think you do lack the capacity. I'm not sure it could be made more clear unless I wrote it all out word for word in capitals, in 72 point font, in red text with bold italics that also are underlined.
You're such a putz. I don't know p0intman personally, but I remember his name and thus know that he's been paying for Planetside subs for years. 14.99 a month. It's pathetically desperate to want to portray someone as a leech just because you lack the capacity to understand his actual point.

Anyone who calls me a leech clearly hasn't been around very long and thus the accusation doesn't matter very much.

Malorn

2012-06-04, 09:42 PM

XP boosts are one thing; resource boosts are quite another. An XP boost only affects the person using it. A resource boost affects gameplay directly.

Resource boost of 3x can render resource acquisition meaningless. You can't possibly use resource denial as a viable tactic if a subset of the population is immune to it due to a resource boost. It won't be effective and then nobody can use it. Moreover, the value of land goes way, way down when people don't need resources because you have a huge multiplier on the resources they earn.

I expected a resource boost, but I thought something like 20% or maybe 50%. But I saw those as things that would be good for facility benefits or continent domination benefits, not something purchasable. If it were a facility benefit or continent domination benefit then you can deny that benefit and use it as a part of strategy. You can't deny someone the in-game shopping cart, so merely having this in the game just flushes a lot of the resource-based gameplay right down the shitter.

Resource boosts ARE pay-to-win when the game is about resource control and territory domination. If you have the boost, you have a big advantage over someone who doesn't have the boost. That's really fucking lame.

Edit: I have nothing against XP Boosts, those are fine to me, but Resource boosts are very bad because they undermine the fundamental territory control gameplay.

FPClark

2012-06-04, 09:44 PM

So how does that affect him? You were accusing him of being cheap. I wasn't accusing you of being cheap.

Im pointing out that he is complaining about something that wont be changed (nor does it need to be) that is part of a FREE (That means no money is required btw {as in really you dont have to pay if you dont want too}) game.:rolleyes:

Leveling faster gives no more of an advantage one would get with playing the game longer than someone else.

Also say I pay for a 10000000000000000% XP boost...Unfortunatly due to my limited capacity (thanks for pointing that out BTW ill go get my head scanned) I dont get any kills, I fail at getting support points, hell, I spend the entire boosted session trying to figure out how to get out of the spawn tubes...I got nothing from the boost.

The point is P2W involves giving an advantage over another player who did not pay for that in a 1v1 scenerio due to a higher damage or a greater survivability.

Toppopia

2012-06-04, 09:46 PM

Resource boosts are a big NO NO. While XP boosts are acceptable, because as Malorn says, resource denial tactics are useless then what do we do? Go join the massive zergfest in the middle??? No thanks, i would rather tactical surprise assaults and strategy.

The Kush

2012-06-04, 09:48 PM

There are no pay to win features. This topic should be closed as this has been discussed in multiple threads before this.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 09:50 PM

There are no pay to win features. This topic should be closed as this has been discussed in multiple threads before this.

Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon) - YouTube

Im pointing out that he is complaining about something that wont be changed (nor does it need to be) that is part of a FREE (That means no money is required btw {as in really you dont have to pay if you dont want too}) game.:rolleyes:

Leveling faster gives no more of an advantage one would get with playing the game longer than someone else.

Also say I pay for a 10000000000000000% XP boost...Unfortunatly due to my limited capacity (thanks for pointing that out BTW ill go get my head scanned) I dont get any kills, I fail at getting support points, hell, I spend the entire boosted session trying to figure out how to get out of the spawn tubes...I got nothing from the boost.

The point is P2W involves giving an advantage over another player who did not pay for that in a 1v1 scenerio due to a higher damage or a greater survivability.

Have you ever installed planetside to begin with?

Zhane

2012-06-04, 09:50 PM

Malorn

2012-06-04, 09:50 PM

There are no pay to win features. This topic should be closed as this has been discussed in multiple threads before this.

You should read the thread before dismissing it.

Resource boosts, as I describe above are not only pay-to-win, but also undermine a core part of the gameplay.

CTheRain

2012-06-04, 09:53 PM

Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0)

Have you ever installed planetside to begin with?

I agree. No features of P2W. I don't think leveling up quicker is P2W, most people don't. I just think point is one unique snowflake bitching.

FPClark

2012-06-04, 09:53 PM

Have you ever installed planetside to begin with?

Whats planetside?

Toppopia

2012-06-04, 09:53 PM

To the OP and others:

Anyone who ever thought they would not sell xp/resource boosts is a moron. If it bothers you enough not to play the game, stop wasting our time and yours by posting in a forum dedicated to a game you don't want to play. They will also sell weapon unlocks/variants - bet on it. But you'll still be able to access those weapons without spending money... it'll just take some time. Don't like it, play a boxed game with a subscription.

If, down the road, they start selling weapons that are empirically better than others, and those weapons aren't able to be acquired through gameplay, the situation would need to be reexamined. But until then, the rest of us will enjoy an incredible game.

I knew they would sell xp boosters, but if they sell resource boosters, then the game will lose one of its features, "Resource tactical attackness" Because if everyone can basically buy resources with money, then whats the point in attacking bases and towers? (Besides doing it for fighting). This will pull away from the 20% advantage slogan they have been saying because i could fight an enemy then i run out of resources, he won't because he has like 1million saved from his stupid resource boosters then i can't fight him anymore.

Brusi

2012-06-04, 09:53 PM

A resource boost affects gameplay directly.

Not directly.

Virulence

2012-06-04, 09:56 PM

Resources which can be stockpiled don't influence much of a strategic element - they exist as something that can be boosted by cash boosts, and they exist to ensure people fight over a variety of facilities instead of having a constant back-and-forth zerg on one facility.

Malorn

2012-06-04, 09:56 PM

Anyone who ever thought they would not sell xp/resource boosts is a moron.

I believe we all expected XP boosts (and some consider them P2W, others do not, I'm in the 'not' category).

Some suspected resource boosts, but the scale of the boost is utterly stunning - 3x. I expected something like 20-25% resource boost. That's enough to give you a clear advantage but not enough to completely break the game. I had also hoped such boosts would be in-game facility benefits or some sort of territory control reward. That's something that you can obtain and deny directly in-game and could make for a great objective to fight over.

A multiplier like 3x on the resource system - the core driving factor for territory and, as Higby says, success in PlanetSide 2 - is absurd.

FPClark

2012-06-04, 09:58 PM

Have you even read the rest of the thread? You're just slinging a more limited definition on P2W to suit your own "point".

What you did was imply that any kind of critique is the result of those people being cheap. Go back and read your own posts if your memory is already failing.

:rolleyes:
...
I do agree that resource boosting would be p2w

Xyntech

2012-06-04, 10:00 PM

I (along with the commonly accepted definitions of F2P and P2W) disagree with you p0intman.

Pay 2 Win applies when a person can pay to get a game changing item which can not be gotten through free play.

I think it also comes into play when there are large gaps between the power level of long time players vs new players. For example, in most MMORPG's, being several levels higher than another player will almost guarantee your victory in a fight. This simply isn't true in Planetside 2, because sidegrades will offer a significantly smaller advantage.

Undoubtedly having a sidegrade will give you an advantage in some scenarios, but a more skilled player in a more tactically advantageous situation will still be guaranteed a kill. That's not even mentioning the fact that most fights won't be 1 vs 1, so a single players slight advantages won't affect the outcome of the fight as much as the combined skill of each empires groups in the fight.

There is also the rock paper scissors gameplay of Planetside. A tank equipped for anti-infantry won't have to worry about what their target infantry have spent real money on. Only how skilled they are, whether they have AV weapons, and how many of them there are.

You can call it P2W if you want, but that isn't the definition. If you don't like it, fine. nobody is forcing you to play it. If you insist on playing it anyways and on trying to exploit it, go for it. I doubt this particular issue will be that exploitable, but I'm sure there will be plenty of other broken game mechanics that will be ripe for exploiting, so please, have at it. I doubt the game will end up being the game you want it to be when you're done exploiting it's flaws, but it will doubtless be better for your diligence.

Brusi

2012-06-04, 10:01 PM

CTheRain

2012-06-04, 10:01 PM

I believe we all expected XP boosts (and some consider them P2W, others do not, I'm in the 'not' category).

Some suspected resource boosts, but the scale of the boost is utterly stunning - 3x. I expected something like 20-25% resource boost. That's enough to give you a clear advantage but not enough to completely break the game. I had also hoped such boosts would be in-game facility benefits or some sort of territory control reward. That's something that you can obtain and deny directly in-game and could make for a great objective to fight over.

A multiplier like 3x on the resource system - the core driving factor for territory and, as Higby says, success in PlanetSide 2 - is absurd.

I'll spend $60 on this game like any other game that comes out new. I'll be max level in a few weeks/months. If I get killed with my so called advantage then that person is the better player. Noobs are gonna complain. The dedicated players will play 20-30+ hours a week. The zerg will hop on after school for 1-2 hours and go do something else. Maybe they should limit everyone playtime per week. So that everyone gets equal playtime and doesn't have an advantage. Because life is fair and whatnot right?

Malorn

2012-06-04, 10:02 PM

Not directly.

Yes, directly.

Matt Higby:
The importance of resources can't be overstated. These resources are going to add so much to the way people play, and the way that your empire, the way that your outfit, and the way that you manage resources is really going to affect your success or failure on the battlefield.

...And if you pay some smedbux or auraxium you get a 3x multiplier on resources. If you can't see the problem with that you're beyond hope.

The fact that it is in a category of items that can be purchased either with in-game resources or smedbux doesn't change the massive impact it has on gameplay, nor does it give a clear advantage to those who pay some cash and always have it.

FPClark

2012-06-04, 10:03 PM

p0intman

2012-06-04, 10:04 PM

SpcFarlen

2012-06-04, 10:04 PM

I believe we all expected XP boosts (and some consider them P2W, others do not, I'm in the 'not' category).

Some suspected resource boosts, but the scale of the boost is utterly stunning - 3x. I expected something like 20-25% resource boost. That's enough to give you a clear advantage but not enough to completely break the game. I had also hoped such boosts would be in-game facility benefits or some sort of territory control reward. That's something that you can obtain and deny directly in-game and could make for a great objective to fight over.

A multiplier like 3x on the resource system - the core driving factor for territory and, as Higby says, success in PlanetSide 2 - is absurd.

I believe the x3 represents the quantity. You get 3 of each. Unless they have the boosters in tiers, it is just redundant to then slap a time three on it.

CutterJohn

2012-06-04, 10:06 PM

The issue isn't F2P. Everyone has know it for years now and if they'd really have any problem with it they wouldn't be on this forum, following the game's development. It's how F2P can regress into P2W that people are afraid of.

Afraid of what, specifically? That they will be forced to pay to compete? And?

Lets say F2P fails, and skins and helmets are not enough to maintain the game in the black.

Now you have two options.

Option 1. Increase the monetization. Sell more stuff, sell power.

Effect on the players: They will be heavily influenced to pay so as to compete on a level playing field.

Option 2. Revert to a subscription based service.

Effect on the players: They will be absolutely required to pay money so as to play at all.

Right then. Point out, exactly, how option 1 and option 2 are different, and exactly how still being able to play for free despite being at a disadvantage is worse than not being able to play at all for free. Be very clear with this. I am extremely curious.

anyone who disagrees with resource boosting being paying to win very clearly doesn't understand continental or intercontinental strategy in which planetside is based as a core gameplay element.

Who cares if it's pay to win. Stop being a cheap and pay for the services you are being provided.

SpcFarlen

2012-06-04, 10:07 PM

This thread really is starting to weed out people who understand strategy in planetside and those who don't.

anyone who disagrees with resource boosting being paying to win very clearly doesn't understand continental or intercontinental strategy in which planetside is based as a core gameplay element.

and for those who persist..

That is why you fail - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI)

I think you are standing on a pretty tall soap box there. Can you please then inform of us of how it does ruin this strategy which you keep so secret? Seems silly to refrence something then never elaborate.

Xyntech

2012-06-04, 10:08 PM

Resource boost does mean that a player can spam grenades for money... basically.

But it is still not directly selling power. I would assume that anyone who does not want to pay for a resource boost would still be able to compete and more importantly, enjoy their gaming experience.

It's also something that can be balanced out, by things like timers. Instead of something too harsh like having a timer for every time you purchase a grenade, have a timer where you can purchase up to x amount as quickly as you want (sitting at a terminal spamming them as soon as you get them), but with a timer that slowly counts down, allowing you to purchase another single grade after 2 minutes, a second one after 4 minutes, etc.

I'm not saying they are going to do this, I'm just using it as an example that there are ways to keep a thumb on the gameplay impact of even something as troubling as a resource booster. They have already suggested they are doing it for vehicles and perhaps MAXes, so it's not an unreasonable possibility.

I guess where we differ is that I plan to exploit anything broken once we get in beta, where p0intman would rather condemn the game now.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 10:08 PM

Afraid of what, specifically? That they will be forced to pay to compete? And?

Lets say F2P fails, and skins and helmets are not enough to maintain the game in the black.

Now you have two options.

Option 1. Increase the monetization. Sell more stuff, sell power.

Effect on the players: They will be heavily influenced to pay so as to compete on a level playing field.

Option 2. Revert to a subscription based service.

Effect on the players: They will be absolutely required to pay money so as to play at all.

Right then. Point out, exactly, how option 1 and option 2 are different, and exactly how still being able to play for free despite being at a disadvantage is worse than not being able to play at all for free. Be very clear with this. I am extremely curious.
with the second, anyone who is playing is on an even playing field.

CTheRain

2012-06-04, 10:10 PM

Afraid of what, specifically? That they will be forced to pay to compete? And?

Lets say F2P fails, and skins and helmets are not enough to maintain the game in the black.

Now you have two options.

Option 1. Increase the monetization. Sell more stuff, sell power.

Effect on the players: They will be heavily influenced to pay so as to compete on a level playing field.

Option 2. Revert to a subscription based service.

Effect on the players: They will be absolutely required to pay money so as to play at all.

Right then. Point out, exactly, how option 1 and option 2 are different, and exactly how still being able to play for free despite being at a disadvantage is worse than not being able to play at all for free. Be very clear with this. I am extremely curious.

Option 1 preys on the competitive players. The people that want to win and have an advantage or be ahead of everyone.

Option 2 is the community grows slower or not at all. Its the same with a box game. It will sell around 30k-900k depending on the franchise.

So with f2p we bring in more people, more money and a better challenge.

CutterJohn

2012-06-04, 10:10 PM

with the second, anyone who is playing is on an even playing field.

No they aren't. The game, through its rpg nature, has power progression, awarded merely for slogging out xp. Just as PS1 had.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 10:12 PM

No they aren't. The game, through its rpg nature, has power progression, awarded merely for slogging out xp. Just as PS1 had.

put in enough time and it goes away. for the record, I'm all for dissolving leveling entirely.

Malorn

2012-06-04, 10:12 PM

I'll spend $60 on this game like any other game that comes out new. I'll be max level in a few weeks/months. If I get killed with my so called advantage then that person is the better player. Noobs are gonna complain. The dedicated players will play 20-30+ hours a week. The zerg will hop on after school for 1-2 hours and go do something else. Maybe they should limit everyone playtime per week. So that everyone gets equal playtime and doesn't have an advantage. Because life is fair and whatnot
right?

It isn't the same as an XP boost. People are trying to argue for resource boosts as if they are XP boosts. They are not.

Resources earned and consumed per unit time does not change if you play 60 hours a week vs 2 hours a week.

A resource boost of the order of 3x would allow the person who has it to spam grenades, always have medkits, and use large orbital strikes on cooldown, not to mention be immune to and not care about the entire resource aspect of the game.

(And before people get into arguments about whether I don't want to pay or support the game - I have disposable income, I don't care about money and already have maxed out my smedbux at 50k and continue to pay for a PS1 subscription even though I haven't logged into it for months and really played it seriously for years. I will happily continue to support PS2. I will buy all of the bells and whistles they throw at me except for $70 monacles.

What I don't want is for the game to be dumbed down and the entire territory control and resource model to be made completely worthless because they decide to sell unlimited resources in the station store. They will make mistakes in monetization and we all have fears they won't monetize the right things. Resource boosts of the magnitude we have seen are completely absurd and will be a serious detriment to the game.)

Virulence

2012-06-04, 10:13 PM

CTheRain

2012-06-04, 10:14 PM

put in enough time and it goes away. for the record, I'm all for dissolving leveling entirely.

Same with Xp boost. After enough time it won't matter anymore. In a typical RPG MMO the more dedicated players will level up quicker, do dungeons first, find out certain things others will not and take advantage of the slowbies.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 10:18 PM

Same with Xp boost. After enough time it won't matter anymore. In a typical RPG MMO the more dedicated players will level up quicker, do dungeons first, find out certain things others will not and take advantage of the slowbies.
my god you're clueless.

normal MMOs let you gain that boost while logged off and in a specific area. this way they want to nickle and dime you for that advantage. thats bullshit and it clearly is an advantage.

Malorn

2012-06-04, 10:19 PM

I think calling it a 3x resource boost is a bit... Premature.

I'm pretty sure that reward (as seen on their facebook app) gives three experience amplifiers and three resource amplifiers, not an experience amplifier with a 300% modifier or a resource amplifier with a 300% modifier.

That is a possibility. And the thread title is "Potential for selling pay to win"

Clearly the takeaway for the devs is that they need to be very careful how boosts affect resources, as resource modifiers are definitely an avenue for P2W. The fact that they exist is worthy cause for discussion.

CTheRain

2012-06-04, 10:19 PM

It isn't the same as an XP boost. People are trying to argue for resource boosts as if they are XP boosts. They are not.

Resources earned and consumed per unit time does not change if you play 60 hours a week vs 2 hours a week.

A resource boost of the order of 3x would allow the person who has it to spam grenades, always have medkits, and use large orbital strikes on cooldown, not to mention be immune to and not care about the entire resource aspect of the game.

I will agree the ratio needs to be toned down a bit. But taking it completely out of the game I will not.

Xyntech

2012-06-04, 10:19 PM

with the second, anyone who is playing is on an even playing field.

Presumably they would still need some form of free player to keep the player counts up. I'm sure Planetside would have continued with the reserve system if the game hadn't been so broken and easy to exploit. So what you would likely end up with in a heavily subscription based model would be reservists who had some significant limitations like the BR8 of the first game.

The reservists in Planetside were still able to kill subscribers, quite easily in fact. I wouldn't call the Planetside of that era "P2W." I'd have only called it that if the reservists had been given a lot more significant limitations to their effectiveness, such as half hitpoints/shields, half damage for all of their guns, -33% speed on all of their vehicles, -33% ammo in their guns, 4x as long vehicle/MAX spawn times, etc.

My idea of P2W starts when a free player can't reasonably expect to win against another player based entirely on the fact that the other player has paid money.

I agree that there is a risk of the game slipping further towards P2W, but that's just reason to be vigilant and speak against it, and to support the game by purchasing things like cosmetic items to keep them from needing to search desperately for more income. There are some very successful games that use F2P that does not match my definition of P2W, so I'm confident that Planetside 2 has a good chance of doing the same.

But again, let's exploit the hell out of it in beta. I'm game for making the system as balanced as possible within the bounds of the game making money.

CutterJohn

2012-06-04, 10:22 PM

put in enough time and it goes away. for the record, I'm all for dissolving leveling entirely.

Only if you stick around long enough. New players will forever be behind vets. New players can only equal vets when they themselves become vets. At which point they'll be advantaged over the newbs.

I agree with ditching it though. Experience is a relic of PnP games where the player couldn't actually get better at the game through personal skill. It is unnecessary in skill based games like FPSs.

P2W I find to be only mildly annoying, since, while I find the imbalance distasteful, it has the upside of encouraging people to pay for the upkeep of the game. Its not something you want to have to do, it is simply something that could need to be done. If thats the case, so be it.

CTheRain

2012-06-04, 10:25 PM

my god you're clueless.

normal MMOs let you gain that boost while logged off and in a specific area. this way they want to nickle and dime you for that advantage. thats bullshit and it clearly is an advantage.

Insults? Like going down the social pyramid huh?

I was commenting on what you said. After awhile the progression, the experience boost or any kind of leveling will be null. Lets just agree to wipe every max level person when a new player starts the game because its unfair. I think that's the best idea for the game. You know because you hate unfairness and advantages. I treat the options to the game and compare them to life. Life isn't fair, why should the game be? If I went and bought BF3 and bought the weapon kit at level 1. I got a really big advantage over anyone else. But you know what? I'm still gonna get owned because I'd be a new player or they're people better than me.

Prox12 will return, also.

IMMentat

2012-06-04, 10:25 PM

It's a social/class sytem. In the end its not the paying that people object to, its the perception that if I can't or don't want to pay something why should I be at a disadvantage?

Have a gradient of prices, don't overcharge for items and have regular price reductions, sales and bundle deals and the playerbase will accept a lot.

Most important is to make sure that any advantages are small enough that a good player is able to compete, even if they only devote time rather than money.

mirwalk

2012-06-04, 10:25 PM

I don't know if the resource boost will be that big of a deal. They have stated that you can only get X amount of resources before you cap. So its not like I would be stockpiling 1mil in a resource and moving out a fleet of tanks and what not.
Depending on how fast we get resources, it may very will be near moot. If an average good gamer and keep from going to 0 each time he plays, due to good choices instead of spamming like a noob. Then who cares if at the end of the day his resources were 1000 instead of 100?

Heck I think in the live cast the guy had 2500 to start and he was running low by the end of the stream.

I think the camo stuff will sell well, due to how bright the normal colors are. You would probably be skipped over by other players with the right camo as they would go after the easily seen kill? Is that not P2W? I made it so other people can't pick me out nearly as easily.

I have to agree with other people that PS2 needs to be F2P as that is the only way you will grow the community. MMOFPS? for 60 bucks? Nah I don't like MMOs or I don't like FPS.. Or come on dude try it for free and see if it is any good.

TeaReks

2012-06-04, 10:25 PM

my god you're clueless.

normal MMOs let you gain that boost while logged off and in a specific area. this way they want to nickle and dime you for that advantage. thats bullshit and it clearly is an advantage.

PS2 will not survive on cosmetic items alone. I have been playing SOE games since EQ1 in 2000. Right now my main account has $300 of station cash that I plan to blow on day one of Planetside 2.

I fully expect weapons to be on the market. The thing is they will not have weapons that you can only get on the market. You have two options, investing time or money.

Malorn

2012-06-04, 10:27 PM

I will agree the ratio needs to be toned down a bit. But taking it completely out of the game I will not.

If you want something to help the casual players enjoy more resources for short play sessions, do what WoW did with Rested XP. Do the same thing, with Rested Resources. Longer you don't play, the more double-resource generation you get. Regulars will get very little rested, while casuals can enjoy a bit more lenience on the resource aspect of the game. Problem solved. No need for boosts. "Rested" xp was a fantastic idea. No reason it shouldn't be applied to PlanetSide 2 for both XP and Resources for casual players.

I would much prefer resource boosts be in-game benefits from facilities and/or continent domination. That's a sort of boost that you can deny the enemy and claim for yourself. Hell maybe that's the meaningful bonus an "Amp" station gives you - amplified resources. 10% bonus for each amp station your empire controls on the continent. Collect all three!

Dagron

2012-06-04, 10:29 PM

Presumably they would still need some form of free player to keep the player counts up.

...

My idea of P2W starts when a free player can't reasonably expect to win against another player based entirely on the fact that the other player has paid money.

I agree that there is a risk of the game slipping further towards P2W, but that's just reason to be vigilant and speak against it, and to support the game by purchasing things like cosmetic items to keep them from needing to search desperately for more income.

...

But again, let's exploit the hell out of it in beta. I'm game for making the system as balanced as possible within the bounds of the game making money.
QFT.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 10:33 PM

You know what microtransactions are fine for? Single player games and games from korea and asia in general.

CTheRain

2012-06-04, 10:36 PM

You know what microtransactions are fine for? Single player games and games from korea and asia in general.

Well I did play MapleStory for 2 years before the Big Bang update and spent around $300 on 2x experience boosts to get to level 200 in 4 months.

Envenom

2012-06-04, 10:38 PM

You know what microtransactions are fine for? Single player games and games from korea and asia in general.

Care to elaborate or was that just bigotry?

p0intman

2012-06-04, 10:38 PM

Well I did play MapleStory for 2 years before the Big Bang update and spent around $300 on 2x experience boosts to get to level 200 in 4 months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexon_Co._Ltd.

Headquarters
Tokyo, Japan[4]
Global Offices
Seoul, South Korea
El Segundo, California, USA
Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

The US market is quite a bit different from the korean/china market.

Dagron

2012-06-04, 10:40 PM

You know what microtransactions are fine for? Single player games and games from korea and asia in general.
That's a very extreme attitude.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 10:43 PM

That's a very extreme attitude.

post no. 1 in this thread I say:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=711737&postcount=1
I am an extremist when it comes to what an advantage is with regards to micro-transactions.

And, have you ever played Aion for example? The korean version, that is. Its grindy as hell. They like that over there. Over here... not so much, for a great many people a grind is mind numbing and not fun.

CTheRain

2012-06-04, 10:43 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexon_Co._Ltd.

Headquarters
Tokyo, Japan[4]
Global Offices
Seoul, South Korea
El Segundo, California, USA
Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

The US market is quite a bit different from the korean/china market.

Combat Arm was very successful in America. Especially Global MapleStory. Almost half of Nexon revenue comes from America.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 10:45 PM

Combat Arm was very successful in America. Especially Global MapleStory. Almost half of Nexon revenue comes from America.
Has it come to your attention that its because people don't like grinding as much and the hellacious experience that it is for some people coaxes them to buy exp modification to make it less terrible? Asia has been on micro transactions 3.0 for fucking years.

I've said it now for ten pages where this is going. I feel this is like.. rote at this point. Has it come to you that this is I don't know... the intent?

CTheRain

2012-06-04, 10:51 PM

Has it come to your attention that its because people don't like grinding as much and the hellacious experience that it is for some people coaxes them to buy exp modification to make it less terrible?

I've said it now for ten pages where this is going.

The Big Bang update got rid of Experience boost and changed the grind to something of getting the max level within a month. Yet it still has almost half the revenue for Nexon. People love to buy an advantage over people. Combat Arms you could buy guns that had 2-3 day timers on them but would be OP as shit.

The F2p model is fine. If you don't like people buying an advantage then don't play. You won't be missed.

Dagron

2012-06-04, 10:55 PM

I was going to put this in my last post (I'm a slow typer, sry).

First of all, i'm aware you intend to support the creators of a game if they deserve it.
Now say you'd pay a subscription and everyone would be on equal ground.
What about those people who don't have enough disposable income to pay a subscription but they want to try it out, they can't play at all?
What if they don't mind being underpowered as long as they get to play?
Seems to me you're using the "equal ground" argument from the wrong perspective.

If i really liked a game but didn't have much money to spend on it, i'd rather play as a grunt and buy an ocasional hat to support the game than not play at all.

And, have you ever played Aion for example? The korean version, that is. Its grindy as hell. They like that over there. Over here... not so much, for a great many people a grind is mind numbing and not fun.
Nobody here likes a grind, i get that. I don't like it either.
But doesn't the ammount a free player "has" to grind depends on how much more powerful the paying players would get?
Is it absolutely mandatory that the power level of paid items is insanely godlike for them to want to buy them?
Maybe if done carefully, buying power could be worth it to those players who have the income, but it wouldn't squash free players' fondness for the game, while keeping the game as profitable as possible for the company.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 11:01 PM

I was going to put this in my last post (I'm a slow typer, sry).

First of all, i'm aware you intend to support the creators of a game if they deserve it.
Now say you'd pay a subscription and everyone would be on equal ground.
What about those people who don't have enough disposable income to pay a subscription but they want to try it out, they can't play at all?
What if they don't mind being underpowered as long as they get to play?
Seems to me you're using the "equal ground" argument from the wrong perspective.

If i really liked a game but didn't have much money to spend on it, i'd rather play as a grunt and buy an ocasional hat to support the game than not play at all.

Nobody here likes a grind, i get that. I don't like it either.
But doesn't the ammount a free player "has" to grind depends on how much more powerful the paying players would get?
Is it absolutely mandatory that the power level of paid items is insanely godlike for them to want to buy them?
Maybe if done carefully, buying power could be worth it to those players who have the income, but it wouldn't squash free players' fondness for the game, while keeping the game as profitable as possible for the company.

The microtransaction game is this: you make your gaming experience enjoyable to start with, but as people progress, unless they pay you, their experience slowly deteriorates into a mindnumbing experience where its next to impossible to get anything done without paying extra for it. That is where they want to go, and that is where it has been stated they want to go for a long time now. It isn't a matter of being reasonable, its a matter of, 'How terrible of an experience will people tolerate before they quit or pay up?'

That is the problem, because that is where gaming stagnates and becomes unsustainable.

Xyntech

2012-06-04, 11:03 PM

Extremists are so well known for their rationality...

These threads are such jokes. Some good points wrapped up in so many layers of pomp and bluster and leaping to conclusions.

If you have any interest in getting things changed for the better, you'd look for solutions that achieved what the devs need out of the game while being acceptable to your own gaming sensibilities. Instead you seem interested in drawing as much attention to yourself as possible and calling Higby out like some sort of grade school grudge match.

On the other hand, if you simply see Planetside 2 as impossibly flawed and doomed to fail, yet enjoy making these threads instead of just ignoring the project as a disappointment, then you are one of the very few people who could legitimately be considered a bittervet.

I do have a hard time pegging which you are, concerned fan or one of those rare actual bittervets, but either way your approach seems futile and counter productive. At least until beta comes where you can actually back up some of your extremist points with data, and others can back up counter points on changes that actually turn out not to be so bad. Not that I think you'll necessarily listen to those fact based counter points, but at least they could legitimately be made at that time.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 11:04 PM

Extremists are so well known for their rationality...

I do have a hard time pegging which you are, concerned fan or one of those rare actual bittervets

Call me both and its fair while being accurate. I'm about as practical as you can get, I rather care for the end objective more than the means of getting there in just about anything. I also hate stagnation and greed, because they ruin anything good they touch.

Dagron

2012-06-04, 11:12 PM

its a matter of, 'How terrible of an experience will people tolerate before they quit or pay up?'
Like you i'm somewhat cynical, some bad experiences made me that way. But i hate that, so i try to have some faith.
Change doesn't occur overnight, but maybe some day companies will start trying to profit over their games on the long run instead of burning the community over a few years, which gives them bad reputations and slows down future sales.

But i'm rambling... i guess it's like Xyntech said, this topic is hardly constructive right now and we might aswell put it on hold until we know more.

CTheRain

2012-06-04, 11:12 PM

So does anyone know how much resource/XP boosts will cost, and more importantly, how fast resources will drain (i.e. how expensive vehicles etc. are)?

If this balance doesn't grow completely out of proportion, I could accept it. I paid for Planetside for at least 30 months. I then paid for WoW for even longer. I'm not a cheapskate (even though I'm Dutch), I just don't want to see a complete travesty where one empire is continuously pushed into a corner because they attract cheapskates (it will be TR, just to be clear).

It will be the one reddit is on.

Xyntech

2012-06-04, 11:13 PM

The microtransaction game is this: you make your gaming experience enjoyable to start with, but as people progress, unless they pay you, their experience slowly deteriorates into a mindnumbing experience where its next to impossible to get anything done without paying extra for it. That is where they want to go, and that is where it has been stated they want to go for a long time now. It isn't a matter of being reasonable, its a matter of, 'How terrible of an experience will people tolerate before they quit or pay up?'

We know that F2P has been a successful business model for many games. Some clearly P2W, others where we would disagree on the definition. The point being, it is a successful way to make money.

Now in those games, the number of players who pay most of the money are a relatively small percentage, while many players pay nothing at all. These free players are willing to put up with what ever restrictions are placed on them to play the game for free. Other players pay money and get to do things like level up with less grind.

In the end, it ends up being like having a subscription cost, except that players have the option of not paying it. It's like if the reservists in the first Planetside were allowed to level beyond their low BR cap, but it would take 10x as long per level.

So as long as players aren't able to purchase exclusive cash shop guns, or abuse resource boosters to spam grenades, it's really not that big a deal. The game gets more players (players = content) and the game gets paid for. Players who want to can pay a subscription (or just spend the money on things like xp boosters), while the free players can still gain access to all of the same things eventually.

It's an FPS where levels and sidegrades don't make a drastic difference, especially in the huge multi-dozen squad fights. Having more players to shoot at is going to be a benefit to the game which will far outweigh the small power advantage that paying players may have, provided the devs don't go over the top and start selling extreme direct power. I think they understand that going to that extreme would kill the game more than it would help fund it though.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 11:16 PM

We know that F2P has been a successful business model for many games. Some clearly P2W, others where we would disagree on the definition. The point being, it is a successful way to make money.

Now in those games, the number of players who pay most of the money are a relatively small percentage, while many players pay nothing at all. These free players are willing to put up with what ever restrictions are placed on them to play the game for free. Other players pay money and get to do things like level up with less grind.

In the end, it ends up being like having a subscription cost, except that players have the option of not paying it. It's like if the reservists in the first Planetside were allowed to level beyond their low BR cap, but it would take 10x as long per level.

So as long as players aren't able to purchase exclusive cash shop guns, or abuse resource boosters to spam grenades, it's really not that big a deal. The game gets more players (players = content) and the game gets paid for. Players who want to can pay a subscription (or just spend the money on things like xp boosters), while the free players can still gain access to all of the same things eventually.

It's an FPS where levels and sidegrades don't make a drastic difference, especially in the huge multi-dozen squad fights. Having more players to shoot at is going to be a benefit to the game which will far outweigh the small power advantage that paying players may have, provided the devs don't go over the top and start selling extreme direct power. I think they understand that going to that extreme would kill the game more than it would help fund it though.

Now see, the only way its acceptable to me is if those sidegrades and such are destructable and consumable type items, where if I kill you with an implant in.. you lose its bonus, flat out, or if I kill your tank, that sidegrade is gone. with that, their effects would be as minimal as is possible. the regulating factor in that would be death frequency and actual cost to begin with.

Landtank

2012-06-04, 11:18 PM

Call me both and its fair while being accurate. I'm about as practical as you can get, I rather care for the end objective more than the means of getting there in just about anything. I also hate stagnation and greed, because they ruin anything good they touch.

Greed? SOE is a business, businesses stay in business by making money. SOE makes money by making games. Games make money when people buy them, or buy micro transactions etc. This allows SOE to continue to develop games, and to support them too!

Personally I think you should stop completely overreacting to the situation, and wait and see how it pans out. The game isn't even in Beta yet, so please give it some time before you say anything rash.

Dagron

2012-06-04, 11:22 PM

It's an FPS where levels and sidegrades don't make a drastic difference...

...provided the devs don't go over the top and start selling extreme direct power. I think they understand that going to that extreme would kill the game more than it would help fund it though.
Maybe... that's what they say now, but sadly no one can predict the future.
A company's personel change, hell people change.
Let's hope the game succeeds and that for this they get to stay on course.
I'm cynically optimistic about this. :lol:

Personally I think you should stop completely overreacting to the situation, and wait and see how it pans out.
Agreed.

NEWSKIS

2012-06-04, 11:22 PM

I just wanted to say since I didn't in my first post is that I do see your point. If you get right down to it, if someones definition of pay to win is any advantage whatsoever no matter how small, then boosts are pay to win.

My idea of pay to win is buying a weapon/item that is better than anything someone who doesnt pay can get. My reason for not minding boosts is that if the game is balanced properly the difference between a boosted player and a non-boosted one is small enough to very easily be overcome by being more skilled at the game. Anything more than just that and I won't be happy. I guess these are the times in the industry, but I almost look at this as a compromise between gameplay and every company's desire to make money. I'd rather have a boost that I don't mind than a paid for minigun that fires nukes that breaks everything in a game.

My question is would there be any percentage for a exp/resource boost that you would agree would be ok? As in is it the whole concept or just a specific amount?

I also just wanted to put one more thing out there. With beta not even started yet, no one know exactly how an exp/resource boost would work or at what percentage. So

Xyntech

2012-06-04, 11:29 PM

Call me both and its fair while being accurate. I'm about as practical as you can get, I rather care for the end objective more than the means of getting there in just about anything. I also hate stagnation and greed, because they ruin anything good they touch.

Fair enough. I'd guess we differ more in approach, and perhaps a little bit in perspective than anything.

Our definitions of what will make Planetside 2 a good game probably differ as well, but I can't fault you for wanting it to be better.

Now see, the only way its acceptable to me is if those sidegrades and such are destructable and consumable type items, where if I kill you with an implant in.. you lose its bonus, flat out, or if I kill your tank, that sidegrade is gone. with that, their effects would be as minimal as is possible. the regulating factor in that would be death frequency and actual cost to begin with.

Yeah, I've seen that idea kicked around by a few people. It would be nice, but I doubt it will happen.

The way I see it though, it won't take that long for a free player to get any one of those unlocks. What will take a long time is to earn every single unlock. But a free player doesn't necessarily need to buy every unlock to match an opponent, just the ones that are relevant to their favorite role. If they want to quickly attain greater versatility, they can pay money as well. But if there is one thing I know from Planetside, it's that you never have to switch to another role. There is always room somewhere for any role you feel like playing as, at least when populations are decent.

But believe me, if I see anything like "cash shop exclusive: x2 damage for 24 hours!!!1," I'll be bitching up a storm along with 90% of PSU I'm sure.

maradine

2012-06-04, 11:36 PM

http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/This-Thread-Delivers/1/thread-delivers.jpg

nm, wrong boards.

Turdicus

2012-06-04, 11:42 PM

Pointman, I have seen several posts by you and they all go the same way. In all of them you have tried to somehow "prove" that the devs have lied to the consumer, or taken back a promise or something. In the post 95-99% of the respondents disagree with you. In response you reiterate your argument, usually without making any changes to it (even though the majority has, more often than not, proven you wrong). Anyone who makes a genuinely great post in response to you is completely ignored by you, and the rant continues in circles.

Most people would notice that they are wrong after having so many people consistently break down their arguments, or would be able to absorb new information into their minds and admit they were wrong. You, on the other hand, are an abyss of logic and basic argumentative skills. Too many times I have seen you lead these ridiculous threads and too many times I have seen many intelligent people try in vain to show you the error of your ways. And btw, seeing that you are a CR5 means nothing to anyone if they don't respect you, and as a result of your posting in these forums I have seen a few times that people do not respect you. Doesn't this give you pause at all? Basically at this point it just tells me that you are someone who played planetside a lot, which is cool and all, but not very impressive.

Hard to avoid being condescending with this post, but seriously man has none of this occurred to you at all? Try to be more open minded.

Edit: And just to let you know you don't NOT have a point. You usually have one, and those points are usually worth being concerned over. The problem is instead that they are misguided and limited, and usually can't be attributed to PS2. People try to tell you this, and you never acknowledge it.

p0intman

2012-06-04, 11:55 PM

Pointman, I have seen several posts by you and they all go the same way. In all of them you have tried to somehow "prove" that the devs have lied to the consumer, or taken back a promise or something. In the post 95-99% of the respondents disagree with you. In response you reiterate your argument, usually without making any changes to it (even though the majority has, more often than not, proven you wrong). Anyone who makes a genuinely great post in response to you is completely ignored by you, and the rant continues in circles.

Most people would notice that they are wrong after having so many people consistently break down their arguments, or would be able to absorb new information into their minds and admit they were wrong. You, on the other hand, are an abyss of logic and basic argumentative skills. Too many times I have seen you lead these ridiculous threads and too many times I have seen many intelligent people try in vain to show you the error of your ways. And btw, seeing that you are a CR5 means nothing to anyone if they don't respect you, and as a result of your posting in these forums I have seen a few times that people do not respect you. Doesn't this give you pause at all? Basically at this point it just tells me that you are someone who played planetside a lot, which is cool and all, but not very impressive.

Hard to avoid being condescending with this post, but seriously man has none of this occurred to you at all? Try to be more open minded.

Just because I don't reply or acknowledge them does not mean I do not see them or see their point. Very simply, I often disagree with them, sometimes not by much and other times to the point where we'll never agree. Its those latter ones that I mostly read but don't reply to, because I'm simply not interesting in arguing with someone I'll never come to an agreement on except in rare situations. The ones that are based in fact, if I don't reply to them... does not mean I don't see or read them. I've got maybe two people I actually ignore posts by total. Think what you like about me, you don't know me very well and because you don't know me... I don't care if I seem illogical.

If you actually knew me, you'd know I'm extremely logical, to a fault. It may not seem it, but then you don't have the perspective of me to understand it. I have read every single post in this thread.

KnightHawk ECID

2012-06-05, 12:03 AM

Made a quick example of how these two payments end up working:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=17443&dateline=1338868948

DashRev

2012-06-05, 12:42 AM

I just went through 15 pages in 20 minutes, but the more of your responses to this thread, the less I understood about your goal. You started off objecting to a specific type of microtransaction product, but now you seem to be arguing the position that the F2P model is inherently flawed; That it cannot and will not work. Any attempt to support it is just convincing producers that players want P2W. If I'm correct, and that is the point you're trying to make, its an incredibly hard one to defend. There are absolutely examples of atrocious implementations of the F2P model, but it can also be done correctly as well.

There are three F2P games that I played heavily: Battlefield Heroes, League of Legends, and Global Agenda. I see two of them as perfect examples of the type of success that a F2P game can have without even coming close to selling power. The third, Battlefield Heroes, I quit as soon as they restructured their model. Other players continued to play and pay. If EA and DICE can maintain a successful model like that from other players, then that is awesome. It doesn't interfere with my ability to play other games.

The F2P model is still relatively new in the NA market. And yes, it does need to be watched carefully and a lot of feedback needs to be given to developers and producers about what you feel is acceptable and what is not. But this thread comes off as you trying to convince other players that what you feel is acceptable and what is not is the only way to feel. I know its easy to get passionate about your hobby, especially when others (like devs, producers, and other players) have so much influence over the direction it goes. But even still, you have to recognize that you hold a pretty niche position.

It seems a little premature for the level of outrage you have over this. Right now we still don't have all the variables in terms of what experience will give us, or the level of rarity of resources in actual gameplay. As an example, Higby mentioned targeting specific resources to deny a specific type of vehicle to an enemy. But we still don't know the strength of this as a tactic. Just how much would you need to monopolize a resource to make a meaningful impact. And even if it does allow paying players to circumvent that resource drought, it will still have an impact on non-paying players. You'll may still see a reduction in the number of a certain type of vehicle. The attacking team will still see the desired result, paying players will still be able to field their preferred vehicle, and non-paying players will see an actual incentive to contribute monetary support for the game they're playing.

Sturmhardt

2012-06-05, 12:56 AM

p0intman

2012-06-05, 01:00 AM

I just went through 15 pages in 20 minutes, but the more of your responses to this thread, the less I understood about your goal. You started off objecting to a specific type of microtransaction product, but now you seem to be arguing the position that the F2P model is inherently flawed; That it cannot and will not work. Any attempt to support it is just convincing producers that players want P2W. If I'm correct, and that is the point you're trying to make, its an incredibly hard one to defend. There are absolutely examples of atrocious implementations of the F2P model, but it can also be done correctly as well.

No, in my opinion, it can't be done well and no, there is no way for it to succeed in keeping the playerbase happy. You are correct about the fact that the F2P model, imo, is inherently flawed and broken. Done well, to me, would consist mostly of not fucking the game up and making paying cash near mandatory.

There are three F2P games that I played heavily: Battlefield Heroes, League of Legends, and Global Agenda. I see two of them as perfect examples of the type of success that a F2P game can have without even coming close to selling power. The third, Battlefield Heroes, I quit as soon as they restructured their model. Other players continued to play and pay. If EA and DICE can maintain a successful model like that from other players, then that is awesome. It doesn't interfere with my ability to play other games.

Good for you.

The F2P model is still relatively new in the NA market. And yes, it does need to be watched carefully and a lot of feedback needs to be given to developers and producers about what you feel is acceptable and what is not. But this thread comes off as you trying to convince other players that what you feel is acceptable and what is not is the only way to feel. I know its easy to get passionate about your hobby, especially when others (like devs, producers, and other players) have so much influence over the direction it goes. But even still, you have to recognize that you hold a pretty niche position.

If I were in the majority, F2P wouldn't exist.

It seems a little premature for the level of outrage you have over this. Right now we still don't have all the variables in terms of what experience will give us, or the level of rarity of resources in actual gameplay. As an example, Higby mentioned targeting specific resources to deny a specific type of vehicle to an enemy. But we still don't know the strength of this as a tactic. Just how much would you need to monopolize a resource to make a meaningful impact. And even if it does allow paying players to circumvent that resource drought, it will still have an impact on non-paying players. You'll may still see a reduction in the number of a certain type of vehicle. The attacking team will still see the desired result, paying players will still be able to field their preferred vehicle, and non-paying players will see an actual incentive to contribute monetary support for the game they're playing.

As has been said before, and I agree with it to an extent.. this games design is flawed to the point where its an atomic bomb waiting to go off in Sony's face. F2P model is just one portion of it, though it is a major portion of it.

I'm waiting to be proven wrong. The notion that I want to be proven right and see PS2 sink like the titanic is flawed. Do prove me wrong. I don't actually want to be right, but with what I've seen.. I've only seen evidence of being correct.

If I'm proven wrong and it works, thats fuckin great. I don't think it'll happen, but there you go.

Brusi

2012-06-05, 01:11 AM

I hated F2P games when they first started to appear. I think F2P systems have matured. I can only hope that they will continue to mature and that PS2 will implement a successful one.

Envenom

2012-06-05, 01:31 AM

Pointman,

http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/f/fish_fail-14146.jpg

p0intman

2012-06-05, 01:44 AM

Pointman,

http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/f/fish_fail-14146.jpg
Envenom,

LOL (http://www.evo.hr/cat/)
Take note: The time you put into your post is exactly the time I give it and pay mind to it. I've already exceeded that, so I'll need to ask you to either make up for it by saying something that warrants more than a token laugh or STFU.

DashRev

2012-06-05, 01:51 AM

No, in my opinion, it can't be done well and no, there is no way for it to succeed in keeping the playerbase happy. You are correct about the fact that the F2P model, imo, is inherently flawed and broken.

How do you respond to a game like League of Legends? Its indisputably a financial success, arguably a critical success, has a pretty expansive playerbase, and is making a decent foray into the e-sports world. All while being a F2P game that sells both experience and currency boosts, as well as Champions which are essentially side-grade playstyle customizations similar to what guns will be in PS2.

Done well, to me, would consist mostly of not fucking the game up and making paying cash near mandatory.

Things you view as mandatory aren't seen the same the same way by everyone else. Getting experience 15% faster than someone else in the original Planetside would be the difference of hitting BR25 while a non-boosted player is only BR21. That is hardly a gamebreaking difference. It doesn't exactly give the paying player an I Win button.

Red Beard

2012-06-05, 01:53 AM

http://rlv.zcache.com/beating_a_dead_polo_horse_tshirt-p235852957999764919b76hr_400.jpg

p0intman

2012-06-05, 01:56 AM

How do you respond to a game like League of Legends? Its indisputably a financial success, arguably a critical success, has a pretty expansive playerbase, and is making a decent foray into the e-sports world. All while being a F2P game that sells both experience and currency boosts, as well as Champions which are essentially side-grade playstyle customizations similar to what guns will be in PS2.

Things you view as mandatory aren't seen the same the same way by everyone else. Getting experience 15% faster than someone else in the original Planetside would be the difference of hitting BR25 while a non-boosted player is only BR21. That is hardly a gamebreaking difference. It doesn't exactly give the paying player an I Win button.
Tbh, I've been avoiding making references to it or responding to references to it because up until about two months ago when I saw that a senator plays it and was opposed to SOPA/PIPA, I had never heard of it. I've kind of avoided paying it mind since because it isn't terribly interesting. What little I know makes me think they go too far with it, though. Nobody I regularly game with mentions it more than in passing and nobody I know really cares, either. So, my experience is pretty limited with it because of that and the fact that what I pay attention to is a different area of the industry entirely.

I've really sort of chalked its rep up to massive groupthink in the same way that Warcraft's fanbase are a rabid hivemind.

MGP

2012-06-05, 02:08 AM

And there we have it. The first "Donating noobs suck!" thread. Many more to come. Like on the "World of Tanks" forum.

Tarconus

2012-06-05, 02:15 AM

No, in my opinion, it can't be done well and no, there is no way for it to succeed in keeping the playerbase happy. You are correct about the fact that the F2P model, imo, is inherently flawed and broken. Done well, to me, would consist mostly of not fucking the game up and making paying cash near mandatory.

So how do they make the game work and make money if they don't box you in to paying eventually.

You still won't have to. It's only broken from your perspective btw, and they could go all out P2W and you would have a bunch of people still playing as long as the weapons were cheap to buy.

Sub games are dead, I liked them to, but people just want free games now and not pay a sub because they think they are saving money when in reality they pay more.

DashRev

2012-06-05, 02:23 AM

I've really sort of chalked its rep up to massive groupthink in the same way that Warcraft's fanbase are a rabid hivemind.

I was actually asking you to evaluate it objectively. Almost any way you define "success" for a video game, it has been successful. It is a financial success. Riot is seeing a ton of profit from it. So much so that during the last e-sports season they paid out $2 million in prize money. Depending on how high your standards are, it has been a critical success. Metacritic has its average critic rating at 78/100, and average player rating at 8.0/10 and the playerbase is immense. It has over 11 million active accounts with over 4 million players logging in every day. It is a textbook example of a successful F2P game, so to say that the F2P model is inherently broken is a pretty hard position to argue.

Yes, F2P has had a storied past, and other games have done it poorly. But as someone else in this thread stated, it has matured a lot since its introduction to the North American market, and it has been done successfully. The idea that you presuppose that Planetside 2 will be hindered by its F2P model is becoming increasingly antiquated.

p0intman

2012-06-05, 02:24 AM

people just want free games now and not pay a sub because they think they are saving money when in reality they pay more.

And that there, is how its broken. Its the same reason why average MMOs are dead, everyone wants a WoW clone, so nothing new is being done despite people being pissed about it.

There will come a time where microtransactions are simply untenable, and we'll be back to square one.

I was actually asking you to evaluate it objectively. Almost any way you define "success" for a video game, it has been successful. It is a financial success. Riot is seeing a ton of profit from it. So much so that during the last e-sports season they paid out $2 million in prize money. Depending on how high your standards are, it has been a critical success. Metacritic has its average critic rating at 78/100, and average player rating at 8.0/10 and the playerbase is immense. It has over 11 million active accounts with over 4 million players logging in every day. It is a textbook example of a successful F2P game, so to say that the F2P model is inherently broken is a pretty hard position to argue.

Yes, F2P has had a storied past, and other games have done it poorly. But as someone else in this thread stated, it has matured a lot since its introduction to the North American market, and it has been done successfully. The idea that you presuppose that Planetside 2 will be hindered by its F2P model is becoming increasingly antiquated.

Asking me to evaluate something I've never tried and have never paid more than token attention to? Oookay.

Imo, a bunch of people have spent a lot of cash on something they see as worthwhile when a subscription would have cost them less. They're effectively paying more than they probably should. I have nothing but disdain for something like that. The idea of asking me to do the same is frankly insulting to my intelligence.

DashRev

2012-06-05, 02:36 AM

Asking me to evaluate something I've never tried and have never paid more than token attention to? Oookay.

That was the point of asking you to evaluate it objectively. "Do you think it is successful" not "Do you think it is fun"

Imo, a bunch of people have spent a lot of cash on something they see as worthwhile when a subscription would have cost them less. They're effectively paying more than they probably should.

So your position is that they're wrong in choosing to spend their money on something they enjoy? They willingly decide to pay money for a product that they have fun with. That money goes to the developer of that product and is in turn used to provide consistent content updates to the product and to fund prize pools for tournaments set up around that product. Tell me, who is losing in this scenario? The players paying for a product they have fun with? The players who don't pay and still have fun anyway? The developers earning a living and working on a project they enjoy? The e-sports community that gets another competitive game?

You say that F2P is inherently broken and is bad for the future of gaming. I'm asking you to find me a problem with that example of a successful F2P game, because to me it looks as though everybody is winning.

Mechzz

2012-06-05, 02:43 AM

Wow. This thread is quite a sack of ferrets. These comments struck me as true:

The resource boost doesn't thrill me. That says to me "resource denial tactics work better if your opponent isn't paying," and that edges quite close to the line at the very least.

XP boosts are one thing; resource boosts are quite another. An XP boost only affects the person using it. A resource boost affects gameplay directly.

It isn't the same as an XP boost. People are trying to argue for resource boosts as if they are XP boosts. They are not.

If anyone doesn't get that this situation:

"I can't spawn a tank because I'm being denied resources by someone who can spawn tanks and they can spawn tanks because they bought a resource boost"

isn't paying to win by any reasonable definition then I'm surprised or I'm missing something. And the "max resources" answer doesn't work because more people will be at max resources in a population using the boost than in a population not using it.

Purple

2012-06-05, 02:44 AM

this isent selling power. it just boosts players who choose to pay for their server time. a non boosting player in a one on one fight stands the same chance as a boosting player.

Winfernal

2012-06-05, 02:44 AM

I'm not too happy with F2P games myself. I always find it sad when some people just can't control themselves. They spend hundreds of $$$ on... heroes in LoL, for example. Or weapons in BF: P4F. I just don't get why.

But since i haven't seen how the model in PS2 works in all it's glory, i can't comment on that one, and neither can you. We don't know FOR SURE about any advantages/disadvantages. It's streaming time today... so let's hope for more information.

Envenom

2012-06-05, 02:44 AM

That was the point of asking you to evaluate it objectively. "Do you think it is successful" not "Do you think it is fun"

So your position is that they're wrong in choosing to spend their money on something they enjoy? They willingly decide to pay money for a product that they have fun with. That money goes to the developer of that product and is in turn used to provide consistent content updates to the product and to fund prize pools for tournaments set up around that product. Tell me, who is losing in this scenario? The players paying for a product they have fun with? The players who don't pay and still have fun anyway? The developers earning a living and working on a project they enjoy? The e-sports community that gets another competitive game?

You say that F2P is inherently broken and is bad for the future of gaming. I'm asking you to find me a problem with that example of a successful F2P game, because to me it looks as though everybody is winning.

If

Checkmate.

p0intman

2012-06-05, 02:48 AM

p0intman

2012-06-05, 02:49 AM

Checkmate.

K, ignored. feel free to stop posting. you've proven that paying attention to you is utterly useless. you have yet to say a single thing that is worthwhile to read.

Winfernal

2012-06-05, 02:52 AM

Again, you're probably spending more than its actually worth with the F2P model. If you find that rewarding, then good for you but I personally think you to be a fool for being that easy to placate when, imo, a sub could probably bring in as much revenue and produce as much content.

True. However, would a sub. only PS2 bring in enough players to maintain the game? This could also be solved with a trial. But the main argument when i'm trying to get people into PS2, is... "It's free, what do you got to lose?"

I'm an anti-f2p person myself. But if there aren't any direct advantages from not paying up, (And by this i mean buying weapons, because expecting things while "leeching"/playing without paying is unreasonable. It would be like expecting support while pirating a game.) i'm fine.

I would expect EVERYONE with an interest in the game to subscribe. It's either that, or micro-transactions. They're not making this game for everyone to enjoy without paying. Someone has to do the job for the game to survive.

Fenrys

2012-06-05, 02:52 AM

Point out, exactly, how option 1 and option 2 are different,

With a subscription, everybody pays the same amount and is on a level playing field.

Without a subscription, those who pay more have more of an advantage (XP/resource boosters are not an advantage, they're a time saver).

I'd prefer to pay $15/month flat rate and get access to all content, rather than play against people who spend $100+/month on stronger ammo and x-ray vision goggles.

p0intman

2012-06-05, 02:56 AM

Winfernal

2012-06-05, 02:57 AM

GreatMazinkaise

2012-06-05, 03:00 AM

It's a slippery slope, definitely, but the cat's out of the bag now.

I'm definitely worried about the resource booster... that could potentially be gamebreaking.

p0intman

2012-06-05, 03:00 AM

They got this, don't they? :eek:

Am i mistaken?!

No, because it isn't as profitable.

Zing. See how it isn't about being reasonable? If I'm wrong, point me at it.

Toppopia

2012-06-05, 03:00 AM

Winfernal

2012-06-05, 03:01 AM

No, because it isn't as profitable.

Zing. See how it isn't about being reasonable? If I'm wrong, point me at it.

I swear i've heard it somewhere. It's like a "premium subscription." Please... someone confirm, please.. :eek:

p0intman

2012-06-05, 03:01 AM

I would also guess that if you stop subbing you lose access to everything? Or do you keep it all?

if I stop subbing, access denied. No reason not to keep it like that.

Mechzz

2012-06-05, 03:02 AM

They got this, don't they? :eek:

Am i mistaken?!

Subscription option is not confirmed, and no details.

Hard to see them giving the whole cash shop to someone who subs though, isn't it? I'll need to see what they offer for a sub and do the math. I plan to spend no more than $15 per month, same as a sub would have cost. If I can't feel competitive doing that, I'm gonna feel that I'm being gouged by SOE. Which would make me sad.

Winfernal

2012-06-05, 03:04 AM

Subscription option is not confirmed, and no details.

Hard to see them giving the whole cash shop to someone who subs though, isn't it? I'll need to see what they offer for a sub and do the math. I plan to spend no more than $15 per month, same as a sub would have cost. If I can't feel competitive doing that, I'm gonna feel that I'm being gouged by SOE. Which would make me sad.

I don't expect the whole shop, with the cosmetic stuff etc.

I expect things like "boosters". You know... these... advantages. (Yes, i said it)If i'm subscribing. Because cosmetic stuff is nothing but looks. And yes, i will get sad if there's no option to do this.

If i am a loyal subscriber, why shouldn't i get it?!

SKYeXile

2012-06-05, 03:05 AM

Again, you're probably spending more than its actually worth with the F2P model. If you find that rewarding, then good for you but I personally think you to be a fool for being that easy to placate when, imo, a sub could probably bring in as much revenue and produce as much content.

Possibly, but planetside needs players, without it, it dies. best to keep a good influx of people with F2P than have it haemorrhage with P2P.

Also you're greatly underestimating how much people spend on gaming especially F2P games.
Iv been subbed to PS2 for about 2 years. so they have probably made like 250, maybe 300 or so off me.

In a year of world of tanks...iv spent about $500.00 or so i think. In free realms i think i would have spent about $300.00 in like a month on that...god dam giant toads.

Mechzz

2012-06-05, 03:08 AM

I don't expect the whole shop, with the cosmetic stuff etc.

I expect things like "boosters". You know... these... advantages. (Yes, i said it)If i'm subscribing. Because cosmetic stuff is nothing but looks. And yes, i will get sad if there's no option to do this.

If i am a loyal subscriber, why shouldn't i get it?!

Yeah, I agree. I did a forum search and there has only been an occasional mention of resource boosts (which strike me as p2w), but I hadn't picked up on it. I have to say I'm now hoping the camo doesn't make much difference in gameplay, because these "boosters" (blergh!) are probably where the money will need to be spent.

DashRev

2012-06-05, 03:10 AM

Again, you're probably spending more than its actually worth with the F2P model.

For the record, and I know you probably weren't specifically referencing me anyway, I never spent a penny on League of Legends. It was still a lot of fun and I never felt disadvantaged by not spending anything.

If you find that rewarding, then good for you but I personally think you to be a fool for being that easy to placate when, imo, a sub could probably bring in as much revenue and produce as much content.

Part of what I like about the F2P model is that it makes the game a lot more accessible for a lot more players. You don't have to ask yourself, "Is this game still worth $15?" every month. If you're really enjoying the game and putting a lot of time into it, the value of some of the microtransactions begins to seem higher. If you've been playing a F2P game for 3+ hours a day for a month, check by the store and see if there is anything that interests you and maybe spend some money. If you're down to about 3 hours a week, and you don't think its worth it, then don't buy anything.

Its also easier for new and returning players to get involved again. If you're looking at a new game and there is no trial version, or the demo isn't really representative of the actual game, you can get screwed out of up to $60 if the game ends up not interesting you. If you quit a game because of X bug or Y feature not being in the game, you probably have to spend $15 just to see if they actually fixed it or actually added it the right way. Take away that introductory barrier and you'll see more players give your game a shot.

Maybe a subscription would get you more content, or maybe a subscription would strangle your game because not enough players think its worth $15 a month. But maybe some players think its worth $20 a month, and some players think its worth $10 a month. Maybe some don't want to pay anything at all, or only want to drop 2-5 dollars just when they see something that interests them.

In reality, the F2P is about whether you trust the developers to take the money they're getting and use it wisely. If they know how to market the game, and release the most content for the money they're getting, and properly balance a game among paying and non-paying players, there is no reason that a subscription is better than a F2P model.

p0intman

2012-06-05, 03:12 AM

Possibly, but planetside needs players, without it, it dies. best to keep a good influx of people with F2P than have it haemorrhage with P2P.

Also you're greatly underestimating how much people spend on gaming especially F2P games.
Iv been subbed to PS2 for about 2 years. so they have probably made like 250, maybe 300 or so off me.

In a year of world of tanks...iv spent about $500.00 or so i think. In free realms i think i would have spent about $300.00 in like a month on that...god dam giant toads.
Underestimating? No, not really. Elfailo/Elcyco earlier mentioned I had been paying subs to SOE for years. Well, putting that in perspective..

Original Activation Date: June 16, 2003. I don't say that to be elitist either, I don't care to flaunt that openly as it doesn't matter much to me to be clear. Only long break I took was between 2008-9ish and 2011, and then for like.. 6-7 months just recently. Other than that, its been 15 a month since 03. That also doesnt take into account I paid for EVE between 2005 and 2007 without fail. What is also unmentioned are the numerous other gaming related subscriptions ive had in the past from other games ive tried and have played. Its completely unsuprising to me to hear that someone spends 500 a month on gaming.

DashRev

2012-06-05, 03:13 AM

Heres the thing that would be ideal: An option to pay a sub instead of buying micro-transactions that allows access to the same content. That way, people who only want to buy certain things, can do that.. and people that want access to the entire thing can pay a flat sub every month instead.

I'm betting you'd have far more people buying a sub than you would see using the store.

Higby did mention something like this by the way. He referenced a "membership" in one of the videos. It may have been from the GDC stuff, I'll hunt for it.

[Edit] Found it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rmWyIMXJEiI#t=296s) He starts talking about the store at around 4:57. He talks about having a "membership" at around 5:37.

Mechzz

2012-06-05, 03:13 AM

Iv been subbed to PS2 for about 2 years. so they have probably made like 250, maybe 300 or so off me.

So when did your beta invite come through Sky? :)

Dreamcast

2012-06-05, 06:11 AM

Planetside 2 must not have long times to unlock weapons/cert.......at least not long enough till a person feels they must buy stuff to unlock shit.

That's really the gamebreaker.

About the Resource booster...It will certainly benifit players with money but would it benifit the team?.....I mean it will have cooldowns...

But yeah it kind of destroys the whole purpose of resources.

Timey

2012-06-05, 06:15 AM

As long as I will still win 100% of the time the engagement that I should win 100% of the time regardless of how much $ the other player has shoved in to the game I'm content.

e: typo

Winfernal

2012-06-05, 06:40 AM

As long as I will still win 100% of the time the engagement that I should win 100% of the time regardless of how much $ the other player has shoved in to the game I'm content.

e: typo

This.

Skill>$$$

SKYeXile

2012-06-05, 06:49 AM

As long as I will still win 100% of the time the engagement that I should win 100% of the time regardless of how much $ the other player has shoved in to the game I'm content.

e: typo

im content aslong as i win 100% of fights, if i dont...MUST BE HACKS.

basti

2012-06-05, 06:52 AM

The xp boost is fine, no problem with that, it does not matter after a few weeks anyway.
But the resource boost is in fact pay to win. You should not be able to build a large storage of resources, otherwise you cannot deny the enemy resources, making the whole idea of the resource metagame pointless.

Timey

2012-06-05, 06:56 AM

im content aslong as i win 100% of fights, if i dont...MUST BE HACKS.

I don't seem to locate the funny.

The xp boost is fine, no problem with that, it does not matter after a few weeks anyway.
But the resource boost is in fact pay to win. You should not be able to build a large storage of resources, otherwise you cannot deny the enemy resources, making the whole idea of the resource metagame pointless.

make this guy a mod... oh.

bullet

2012-06-05, 07:38 AM

The microtransaction game is this: you make your gaming experience enjoyable to start with, but as people progress, unless they pay you, their experience slowly deteriorates into a mindnumbing experience where its next to impossible to get anything done without paying extra for it. That is where they want to go, and that is where it has been stated they want to go for a long time now. It isn't a matter of being reasonable, its a matter of, 'How terrible of an experience will people tolerate before they quit or pay up?'

That is the problem, because that is where gaming stagnates and becomes unsustainable.

So does constantly unlocking stuff = fun to you or is it the fact that you're playing a game with thousands of people? And if we're talking about unlocking stuff, the more certs you have doesnt directly = more wtfpwn.

-Assumption incoming since we have no real data to back this up- <-- Let me bold/underline this for people

You can only utilize X amount of certs at a time due to weapon specific, class specific, vehicle specific certs/mods. You can't tote around dual MCGs with reduced recoil, increased RoF, increased damage, while blasting kids from your tank that has increased armor, increased speed, and increased damage.

I can't imagine they throw you in there only to unlock 2-3 certs then crank that dial up on the required exp to get certs. I would think that they let you get to about mid rank and a decent amount of certs to spend. You can then use those certs gained to specialize into a certain field of play that you enjoy or maybe you can try a little bit of everything, but if their plan of allowing you to unlock all certs is implemented, then there definitely needs to be a steep exp curve on something like that. Edit in: And some people would like to not spend as much time, or have the time, to unlock these things hence the xp booster. But its not as if they are mind numbingly rolling their face on the keyboard to farm those boars or mine that ore. They are actively playing competively with and against other people while having fun.

Meecrob

2012-06-05, 08:23 AM

I would like to butt in here a bit :p. I have been playing League of legends since beta and never ever payed for anything. I also never had the feeling that because i didnt pay i was not able to be competive. All of my friends have paid small (like max 50 dollars) amounts for vanity stuff like skins so i think the F2P model in LoL works extremely well. BattleField: Play4Free on the other hand is a different beast all together. The best weapons of the game are exclusive to people that pay wich is the feared "pay2win". As long as the are only selling booster i don't have the slightest of problem.

Im not saying i like the trend of people that have money and are willing to spend it get to save time. A more illegal form of this was goldselling/character buying in world of warcraft and i was completely opposed to it. But appparently the industry has taken its lesson from this. Nowadays you see this even in non free to play games. Diablo 3 will have its real money auctionhouse for people not willing to spend months farming to be able to complete inferno. Battlefield 3 recently introduced ways to buy equipment / exp boosts. And these are games people actually bought. Again , im not saying i like this trend. I can even say i do not like this trend at all, but it is reality. Games are being made mostly to make money.

I think the current way PS2 is going in this is fine. As stated before the F2P model has one big advantage For a game like PS, it will keep the playerbase at a high level. Because let us not forget why PS1 died, the low population numbers(and bfrs:mad:). As long as they don't have power increasing stuff that is exclusively available for real money im good.

Edit: I do hope the resource boost is only a boost for certain resources needed to purchase upgrades and not for the resources needed to buy vehicles and such.

Coreldan

2012-06-05, 08:26 AM

Satexios

2012-06-05, 08:37 AM

Probably said by now, but my thoughts on boosters like the ones mentioned in OP: Not pay2win, not even close.

I'm all up for "pay2skipgrind" which is what the boosters are. If the same thing can be obtained in the game without paying a dime, it is not pay2win.

I'm not OVERLY concerned about the resources either. I don't think it's a baseline problem, but basti did bring up a good point that it might negate the metagame of resource denial when you can go over that by putting in real money. Generally speaking I'm OK with the idea, sort of like a.. busy family man who works hard and doesnt have time to play much, but when he does he wants to play without being restricted by the fact that he doesnt have that much time to play to earn resources.

Regarding the resource denial thing.

A silly example, lets say you get 100 when you own the entire map and only 10 when you have your sanc.

So when you have a 30% boost (random number) you get 13 resources instead of 10. And the one owning the cont gets 130.

I don't see the real issue here, as you are still being denied your resources. If you are part of a losing faction the boost might just be what you need to keep going.

Either way, it all depends on numbers and data which we do not have so it is all speculation.