Would you RATHER they charge for the game (one time fee)?

[Sabin]

Sorry. Please disregard my previous thread. I would like to know how many people would actually RATHER pay for the game to dissuade hacking.

It's an odd thing when people RATHER give money than take something for free. But I would much rather have it that way and just put a big deterrent to hackers from the start. I believe this is the easiest, and most effective way from the get-go.

I am making this a poll because I find it interesting and relevant. Please give your side of the argument - I would like to see what you all think.

EDIT:
Some people have put out the idea that you pay an initial payment ($20 or so), but you get that back in cash to use for in-game items. I think this is a brilliant idea, and I'd further it by saying that these items you purchase with it should be non-tradeable. Anyone banned will lose that item.

[Rago]

Well i think MMOS are different from regular Multiplayer Games.

Maybe you can pay for a Add on in the Futuer, were you run in Caves and Grab Maelstorms :P

No, Actually im Happy with the F2P, its a grant for More Players.

[Kyros]

Would I pay money for PS2 if it had a one time fee? Most definately.
Would I rather pay money for PS2 if it had a one time fee? No. Why? Because I want to spend all that money in the cash shop and I don't have much of it.

Also hackers are going to be in any game whether it costs money or not. I trust the devs will take care of them.

[Sledgecrushr]

I dont know if paying fir a game can stop hackers. I watched a vid from bf3 where this dude killed everyone in game repeatedly with an ammo box. Just hope soe is pulling iut all the stops to stop hacking.

[Sabin]

Well i think MMOS are different from regular Multiplayer Games.

Maybe you can pay for a Add on in the Futuer, were you run in Caves and Grab Maelstorms :P

No, Actually im Happy with the F2P, its a grant for More Players.

I rather it be the other way around. Add-ons be free. In fact, I think it being a MMOS makes the initial purchase argument stronger. In normal multiplayer games, you get banned from the individual servers usually (VAC gets cracked all the time). In MMOS, you get banned from the entire world. You have no where else to play (except unofficial servers if they make those some day - but who cares about that? They won't affect you anymore.)

[basti]

Paying or not Paying doesnt stop hackers, it just keeps the massive script kiddy crowd at bay. Proper working AntiCheat does the same, and still lets people who play legit play without having to spend cash first (and therefore give the game a whole lot more players).

[ThermalReaper]

No. F2p means more players imo.

[Sabin]

I dont know if paying fir a game can stop hackers. I watched a vid from bf3 where this dude killed everyone in game repeatedly with an ammo box. Just hope soe is pulling iut all the stops to stop hacking.

Look at my post above. In BF3 admins can ban you - but you are only banned from the server. PB is useless for the most part in those cases.

Now, if someone hacks in PS2 and gets banned, they will have to purchase (or obtain in some way) another copy of the game. Anti-hack software + dev's banning hackers + paying for the game AGAIN once you are banned is the absolute best strategy I can think of.

When you take the initial payment out of the equation, they will just find a way to change their hardware/whatever ID's, and make a new account. I doubt alot of people will be willing to keep purchasing copies of the game.

[lMABl]

Would prefer a one time fee, but there is going to be more players with a F2P format which is a good thing especially for a game like PS2. Also with microtransactions I'm more than likely going to spend much more than if I was just to purchase the game. But I have no problem with that.

[Sabin]

Paying or not Paying doesnt stop hackers, it just keeps the massive script kiddy crowd at bay. Proper working AntiCheat does the same, and still lets people who play legit play without having to spend cash first (and therefore give the game a whole lot more players).

What's more likely to break a game? The massive script-kiddy crowd - or hackers who decide it's worth it to purchase multiple copies of the game?

[Goku]

I want to keep the game F2P. Allows far more people access to the game than a box fee does. F2P will make this game never be a ghost town like PS1 is today. More people playing = more money for SOE.

[Sabin]

Would prefer a one time fee, but there is going to be more players with a F2P format which is a good thing especially for a game like PS2. Also with microtransactions I'm more than likely going to spend much more than if I was just to purchase the game. But I have no problem with that.

I just find it hard to believe that even $40 would break the bank so much.

PS1 charged for the game AND a monthly perscription, and it had more than enough players in it's day. A one time charge will not only equal that, but surpass it exponentially because you're done paying after that (unless you want to).

[Raymac]

One time last year, I was on and there were less than 20 NC online. It was so depressing. Players are the lifeblood of Planetside more than nearly any other game out there. Keeping the entry level as free essentially guarantees that there will always be enough players.

[Sabin]

I want to keep the game F2P. Allows far more people access to the game than a box fee does. F2P will make this game never be a ghost town like PS1 is today. More people playing = more money for SOE.

PS1 is a monthly charged game. That is more of a reason than an initial charge. I do not believe a initial fee would stop anything. If PS1, Counter-Strike, Starcraft, etc, etc. could be some of the most popular PC games of all time, and charge an initial fee (PS1 had the monthly and was busy in it's day), then PS2 will be fine.

If people can afford computers to play PS2, you can afford a small initial fee.

[Sabin]

One time last year, I was on and there were less than 20 NC online. It was so depressing. Players are the lifeblood of Planetside more than nearly any other game out there. Keeping the entry level as free essentially guarantees that there will always be enough players.

It's like that because of the month fee. Also, consider this. In 10 years, the price of the game will lower to an insignificant price. Even @ $5-$10, it'd take persistent hackers to keep purchasing them.

[Obiyer]

I voted no, because I think F2P will get more people and keep more people playing. On that note, I am worried about the hackers, they will come in droves, and it's going to be up to the community to deal with it. SOE will need moderators on 24/7 on all their servers. Hopefully, the increased revenue they get with F2P will pay for more moderators.

[RadarX]

This is some very interesting feedback and we appreciate it. We have absolutely no intention of charging for the game, but concerns regarding hacking and free accounts are of course being considered.

[Sabin]

Gotta each lunch. I hope someone picks up on my defense of "Yes." :-D

[i see you naked]

pay 2 play = game will be dead soon
1 time pay = game will be dead soon because they cant keep the server up


f2P = steady income from impatient people

[Goku]

PS1 is a monthly charged game. That is more of a reason than an initial charge. I do not believe a initial fee would stop anything. If PS1, Counter-Strike, Starcraft, etc, etc. could be some of the most popular PC games of all time, and charge an initial fee (PS1 had the monthly and was busy in it's day), then PS2 will be fine.

If people can afford computers to play PS2, you can afford a small initial fee.

Still there is a up front cost to the cost that will deter many people from playing. SOE knows what they are doing here otherwise they wouldn't be bothering. A game that is going to be needing a whole bunch of people like this is best of F2P.

[Sabin]

pay 2 play = game will be dead soon
1 time pay = game will be dead soon because they cant keep the server up


f2P = steady income from impatient people

No.. I'm suggesting a 1 time pay, but with the other good parts of f2P ---- like charging for whatnot (sidegrades, etc.)

[Sabin]

Still there is a up front cost to the cost that will deter many people from playing. SOE knows what they are doing here otherwise they wouldn't be bothering. A game that is going to be needing a whole bunch of people like this is best of F2P.

Well, PS1 and WoW did it somehow without that. :evil: This will be better because there will be no monthly fee. THAT is what will hold players.

Ultima Online too.

[Luieburger]

Assuming that they can effectively keep the hackers at bay, I am 100% behind Free To Play.

[Neurotoxin]

Reduce repeat offenders, start people off with 2000 SC for a $20 purchase, that's fine by me. Or $10 for PS2 and 1000 SC. Or even $5 for PS2 and 500 SC.

Isn't necessary, but I'd buy it if they went that route.

[Kurtz]

Hackers and Monthly fees didn't kill PS1, it was content (BFRs and core combat) that a. was bad and b. split up the pop.

PS2 needs to tred carefully on the releasing of content. even a new Continent added after release can help to split the population.

When you are pushed to release new content, but know you can literally kill the game by doing so, you walk a fine line.

[Goku]

PS1 I don't think broke 100K sales. WoW? You cannot compare the two.

[kaffis]

Reduce repeat offenders, start people off with 2000 SC for a $20 purchase, that's fine by me. Or $10 for PS2 and 1000 SC. Or even $5 for PS2 and 500 SC.

Isn't necessary, but I'd buy it if they went that route.
This is a model I could certainly get behind, though I'd steer clear of going all the way up to $20. If we can run it without the front-loaded cost without problems, more power to 'em!

[Raymac]

It's like that because of the month fee. Also, consider this. In 10 years, the price of the game will lower to an insignificant price. Even @ $5-$10, it'd take persistent hackers to keep purchasing them.

That argument just doesn't work. I've come across plenty of hackers in "one time fee" games. Call of Duty is a perfect example.

One of the best defenses against the inevitablity of hackers are people enforcing it. You may not remember, but the early days of Planetside had a very strong CSR presence. In fact, there was almost no swearing in any of the public chat channels because you would get a warning from a CSR. They did a great job. After awhile, the CSR's faded away, and Planetside became much more wild west, but the concept was already shown to work.

I think the best thing for the game is keeping the entry level at $0 and having active CSR's monitoring the game. I'm hoping it's not a choice of one or the other.

[Mastachief]

F2P please. Whilst paid subs/game may deter the masses of hacker out there it also deters our content (the players) in what is soon to become a market filled with F2P mmo's it's nice to see a company like SOE riding the front of the wave rather than cutting corners to catch up.

The microtransactions will help keep SOE honest regards keeping hackers out, because let be honest we wont pay money to them if we are being killed by hackers/exploiters.

The current "websites" offering subtle planetside hacks will i'm sure be closely monitored by SOE as to how they circumvent any built in security.

Overall i think that the F2P model in a game SOE have $millions to recoup and then profit will actually help to keep the game as hack free as possible.

[i see you naked]

well I personally going to pay 50€ i think it that way:

ive waited so long for the PS sequel because PS was the biggest and best fucking game i ever played in my life, since they went the F2P route im still gonna pay 50€ for some station cash just because to support them and paying for this great game.

[Azovyr]

I'm fully aware why this game must be free and why F2P is right for the game but I voted pay because 1) it works as a bit of a filter against undesirable elements and 2) from what I've seen the game is of superior quality than many full price titles and is well worth the money.

[WarbirdTD]

I think we should stop trying to reinvent the wheel on a forum for a game that hasn't even come out yet, and therefore shows no signs of hacking... If the development team thinks they have a secure game, who the hell are we to disagree without evidence otherwise?

[i see you naked]

I think we should stop trying to reinvent the wheel on a forum for a game that hasn't even come out yet, and therefore shows no signs of hacking... If the development team thinks they have a secure game, who the hell are we to disagree without evidence otherwise?


obv this game will be never secure against hacking scum
like every other game on this planet

[WarbirdTD]

Also, after the SWG debacle, I have heard MANY people swear that they would never buy another SOE product.. This is the perfect opportunity for SOE to make it right again. It is also a HUGE selling point for anyone who is skeptical about the genre. It makes it a hell of a lot easier to get friends interested in a game when there is no entry barrier.

[Crator]

I voted no, but was interested in how DCUO is doing since it went F2P:

DCUO Forums search "Hacking" (http://forums.station.sony.com/dcuopc/search/search.m?openModeration=0&query=Hacking&topicId=0&userId=0&enableHighlight=true&enableSummary=false&start=40)

DCUO Google search "Hacking Issues?" (http://www.google.com/search?q=DCUO+Hacking+issues%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

[basti]

well I personally going to pay 50€ i think it that way:

ive waited so long for the PS sequel because PS was the biggest and best fucking game i ever played in my life, since they went the F2P route im still gonna pay 50€ for some station cash just because to support them and paying for this great game.

Most, if not all of us would do the same.

But this is not just about us, this is also about those who are not here yet. What slowly killed PS1 was the lack of new players. Yes, the game was ahead of its time and a lot of people didnt know about it, and today its different, but thats not all. Back in the day, games were different. The concept of F2P was pretty much nonexistant, and those who did it released crap, utter crap. These days, there are tons of F2P titles out there, and while you can keep the pre F2P wave crowd happy with a good P2P MMO, you may not be able to support the rather new concept of a MMOFPS as a P2P (even one time purchase). Look at Any other FPS out there that got a box price, what happens when a new title gets released? A lot of people just head out, buy the new game, and leave the old one. And people who didnt play the old one yet just hear about fancy new game and ignore the old one alltogether. IF you have your game completly F2P, they will try out the old one because it doesnt cost them a dime. And if they like the game, they stay.

[WarbirdTD]

obv this game will be never secure against hacking scum
like every other game on this planet

BAM, customer service department.

[Sabin]

That argument just doesn't work. I've come across plenty of hackers in "one time fee" games. Call of Duty is a perfect example.

One of the best defenses against the inevitablity of hackers are people enforcing it. You may not remember, but the early days of Planetside had a very strong CSR presence. In fact, there was almost no swearing in any of the public chat channels because you would get a warning from a CSR. They did a great job. After awhile, the CSR's faded away, and Planetside became much more wild west, but the concept was already shown to work.

I think the best thing for the game is keeping the entry level at $0 and having active CSR's monitoring the game. I'm hoping it's not a choice of one or the other.

I disagree. You've come across hackers in a "one time fee" game which has hundreds of servers from them to choose from. Get banned from one, go on to the next, etc. Even in people made unofficial PS2 servers, they would get no where the amount of players to make it work.

CSR rep can only get you so far when there's thousands of people playing. They need an army of them. And if you get banned - so what? Make a new account. No one wants that to happen when their money is on the line.

I'd like to see SOE get people to buy the game the old fashioned way. Amazing game, great reviews, good marketing. Maybe a referral system. I have convinced at least 4 friend of mine to purchase the game (when I thought there'd be an initial purchase price.)

I truly believe a monthly subscription is what held PS1 back. I tried to get friends to play, but they didn't want to pay monthly for a game. Eventually, that is when I stopped playing. I had the "why am I paying monthly to play a game" affect.

Just my 2cents. I appreciate that you guys are willing to comment. I seriously thought I'd have alot more people on my side. :-)

[SergeantNubins]

Needs an option for "dont mind either way".

[Sabin]

This is some very interesting feedback and we appreciate it. We have absolutely no intention of charging for the game, but concerns regarding hacking and free accounts are of course being considered.

Glad you find it interesting. :groovy: I was surprised at the results!

Edit:
Actually, they are pretty close. I guess the people who disagree with me are just more vocal.

Needs an option for "dont mind either way".

I was considering that -- but I thought it was two sides of the spectrum, and people would have an opinion one way or the other. But yea, now I regret not putting it.

[Notturno]

I'm not going to sit here and rattle off credentials, I'll just post some of my experiences with the issue.

There is generally a single, major reason why you see more prevalent hacking in the free to play market. That reason is you have zero barriers to entry for a new account. This means that since the game is free to play, there is no value associated with an account other than the time spent at registration. This is obviously not true once you participate in microtransactions, but for the sake of this discussion we will assume cheaters are not stupid enough to purchase anything on their account.

When you create a pay to play game, you have the obvious drawback of not having as much mass appeal due to the upfront cost of the game. This acts as a deterrent for cheaters and undesirable behavior, but it also limits your customer base. On the flip side, you end up with a community that has slightly higher behavioral standards; each account has a cash value associated with it, so violating the game's rules can result in a suspension or banishment. When you have to spend money to make a new account, therein lies a big component to curbing cheaters; you now have a barrier to entry.

There is one significant issue I have seen with this method as well, particularly in the original pay to play version of All Points Bulletin. Due to the wide availability of proxies and stolen credit cards, many cheaters were not above stealing credit cards to purchase the game. The developers of the game, Realtime Worlds, ended up incurring severely high charge back fees and inflated sales numbers, which ultimately harms their business. By creating a free to play game, you are essentially eliminating this problem by creating a non-necessary market. You have less instances of stolen credit card purchases, since the market is only full of optional purchases, not a necessity to play.

The short of is that going pay to play isn't the best way to combat cheating. While it certainly helps curtail the issue for the cheaters not willing to commit a class B or C felony (in the United States, at least), it does not eliminate all of the problems. You cannot eliminate cheaters through a business model change. While it would help in some regards, it isn't a foolproof solution.

The best methods for stopping cheaters is going to be through careful monitoring and protection, which SOE is obviously aware of. The usage of PunkBuster isn't the worst option in the world, as the only reason they are using it is for executable protection. PunkBuster was already built to help detect any programs modifying or farming data from another client, so it saves SOE time by not having to write that program from scratch. If they include this, an easy to use reporting feature, and an active customer service team to help identify cheaters, they will likely be fine.

I have written in the past about how cheating works (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=718638&postcount=10), so I just want to say that there likely will never be a complete cessation of cheating. It's only a matter of how well you control and police it. I am confident that the SOE team is acutely aware of how damaging a perception of hacker infestation is, and will go above and beyond to not allow that to happen.

[HeatLegend]

I want to pay to pay for it- a one time fee. I don't know enough about hacking so I have no idea how this would stop it. But it'll keep away the bad players- the kind you don't want to play with, not the ones that are bad at playing, they just need practice.

[KTNApollo]

One time fees can't support MMOs. /thread

[Sabin]

I'm not going to sit here and rattle off credentials, I'll just post some of my experiences with the issue.

There is generally a single, major reason why you see more prevalent hacking in the free to play market. That reason is you have zero barriers to entry for a new account. This means that since the game is free to play, there is no value associated with an account other than the time spent at registration. This is obviously not true once you participate in microtransactions, but for the sake of this discussion we will assume cheaters are not stupid enough to purchase anything on their account.

When you create a pay to play game, you have the obvious drawback of not having as much mass appeal due to the upfront cost of the game. This acts as a deterrent for cheaters and undesirable behavior, but it also limits your customer base. On the flip side, you end up with a community that has slightly higher behavioral standards; each account has a cash value associated with it, so violating the game's rules can result in a suspension or banishment. When you have to spend money to make a new account, therein lies a big component to curbing cheaters; you now have a barrier to entry.

There is one significant issue I have seen with this method as well, particularly in the original pay to play version of All Points Bulletin. Due to the wide availability of proxies and stolen credit cards, many cheaters were not above stealing credit cards to purchase the game. The developers of the game, Realtime Worlds, ended up incurring severely high charge back fees and inflated sales numbers, which ultimately harms their business. By creating a free to play game, you are essentially eliminating this problem by creating a non-necessary market. You have less instances of stolen credit card purchases, since the market is only full of optional purchases, not a necessity to play.

The short of is that going pay to play isn't the best way to combat cheating. While it certainly helps curtail the issue for the cheaters not willing to commit a class B or C felony (in the United States, at least), it does not eliminate all of the problems. You cannot eliminate cheaters through a business model change. While it would help in some regards, it isn't a foolproof solution.

The best methods for stopping cheaters is going to be through careful monitoring and protection, which SOE is obviously aware of. The usage of PunkBuster isn't the worst option in the world, as the only reason they are using it is for executable protection. PunkBuster was already built to help detect any programs modifying or farming data from another client, so it saves SOE time by not having to write that program from scratch. If they include this, an easy to use reporting feature, and an active customer service team to help identify cheaters, they will likely be fine.

I have written in the past about how cheating works (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=718638&postcount=10), so I just want to say that there likely will never be a complete cessation of cheating. It's only a matter of how well you control and police it. I am confident that the SOE team is acutely aware of how damaging a perception of hacker infestation is, and will go above and beyond to not allow that to happen.

Very well written. I never meant for it to be full-proof, but a good part of the puzzle.

In the game you mentioned - were hackers stealing credit=cards for the sole purpose of playing the game, or were they making money somehow in-game?

Also, as you said, they're out committing felonies, stealing credit cards. That can happen with any game company, or any company in general. I'm sure that's expected to an extent. People may want to steal credit-card numbers to purchase in-game items with the f2p format as well - then you have the same issue.

I agree that the community has to be an intricate part of the process, but I just do not feel that many people will be willing to put up with that for very long if the hackers can just keep coming back with no problem. And even if they are willing, it's has a likely possibility to hurt the game severely.

[NewSith]

The answer is "yes", but I'm not voting. If PS2 can be an awesome game with f2p model, we shall see...

[Stew]

Since we need at least 2000 players per continents and 6000 per servers ill say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !

[Sabin]

One time fees can't support MMOs. /thread

I answered this in a previous response. I suggest a one-time-free. Then if you wish, purchase the in-game stuff.

[Highwind]

I voted no, because I think there is a genius to this modern model of F2P.

I can talk up how great planetside is until I am blue in the face, but at the end of the day over half of the people I know who are hyped about the game currently flat out would not be playing if they had to pay one up front cent. These same people love their TF2 hats and keys, their DLC for game brands they subscribe to etc etc, but you just can't sell an effectively new intellectual property to some people, they won't listen when all they ever invest in are the blockbuster hits.

By making it zero cost and effectively zero barrier to entry, you will net all of the people that were on the fence and all of the people that had little to no interest which make up the majority of the untapped potential player base. By converting the non-typical player you are growing your brand and in the end you will make your money if your game is worthy. If Nexon can do it, Planetside2 will crush.

[indirect]

This is some very interesting feedback and we appreciate it. We have absolutely no intention of charging for the game, but concerns regarding hacking and free accounts are of course being considered.

*cough* HWID bans.

One time fees can't support MMOs. /thread

Guild Wars would like to disagree with you.

[Sabin]

Since we need at least 2000 players per continents and 6000 per servers ill say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !

You don't think they could fill a few servers up? How was PS1 able to do it with a monthly fee? (I know they had problems later on)

How is every big game out there able to get sales without giving the game away for free?

I'm not saying the game should cost $60 -- but something as a base layer of accountability.

[LightningDriver]

A monthly fee did not stop hacking in Planetside. If character progression was much longer, say a year for the hardest of hardcore players to max out a character, the risk of getting that account perma-banned would at least make people think twice.

[Saifoda]

I voted no simply for the ftp/ftd model being more popular (i.e. more people are likely to play) more killkills for me :) I know it's not bulletproof, but I'm pretty happy with what they've said regarding security.

[kasiraghi]

Haven't read the thread... voted no.

I will probably spend more money on the game than a 'purchase' price if I enjoy it, and if I don't enjoy it (as with any F2P) I won't have lost anything.

[Sabin]

I voted no simply for the ftp/ftd model being more popular (i.e. more people are likely to play) more killkills for me :) I know it's not bulletproof, but I'm pretty happy with what they've said regarding security.

Ok, lets say millions of people play. How does that affect you? Only certain amounts of people enter a continent, and a server. That just means there are people on other servers.

Plenty of games are able to generate players without giving it away for free. If they can't get enough players to fill up a couple servers, then they are doing something entirely wrong. Be it marketing, or game design.

Planetside isn't going to have too much competition in the "hundreds of people fighting each other" FPS genre. I've mentioned it to a few friends who enjoy FPS games, and they are already on board (not mentioning it was f2p.) Marketing and a Great Game should really be enough to generate a decent player base. Then comes the referrals and word of month, because these games are obviously more fun with friends.

In reality, the most they need are 3 servers in the US. East, Mid, West. That's enough to give people decent latency.

While I agree that Sony's current f2p model is a smarter Money-Generating plan, I do not believe it makes for better game play.

[Crator]

A monthly fee did not stop hacking in Planetside. If character progression was much longer, say a year for the hardest of hardcore players to max out a character, the risk of getting that account perma-banned would at least make people think twice.

You must not have played when they offered PS1 as F2P then. It was more about people using exploits. The exploits were so bad that it basically ruined everyone's game play. And if they got banned they would just create a new account and do it again and again. Hence the reason PS1 is no longer F2P...

[Rivenshield]

I've always assumed I'd have to pay for the client. Fifty bucks down, then you play for free, just as with every single other FPS on the market -- though we're playing on Sony's XBAWKS HUEG servers, instead of somebody's bargain-basement server sitting in the corner of their bedroom.

I don't understand how they're going to *pay* for the physical infrastructure to run this game, much less development, if they make it completely F2P. That's pant on head retarded from a financial point of view. And yes, the hacking will be horrendous.

[Crator]

^^^ Please look up definition of Free-to-Play....

[Sabin]

I've always assumed I'd have to pay for the client. Fifty bucks down, then you play for free, just as with every single other FPS on the market -- though we're playing on Sony's XBAWKS HUEG servers, instead of somebody's bargain-basement server sitting in the corner of their bedroom.

I don't understand how they're going to *pay* for the physical infrastructure to run this game, much less development, if they make it completely F2P. That's pant on head retarded from a financial point of view. And yes, the hacking will be horrendous.

Valve is doing fine with f2p. They are making a CRAP LOAD of money off of their item shop. But they leave the majority of the issues to the people running their own servers. That is fine if you have a 32 person server with a couple admins.

Also, I'm sure it gets stale hacking there. In PS2, you can have people hacking to help take control of a vital zone, in a constantly alive gaming world. That has a far greater effect than TF2, when the round or map just resets.

[Cosmical]

Free to play annoys me. Not because it isnt a good model, its just that i feel like im being scammed. Im not a 12 year old who values the look of my characters visor while i tea bags someone. I just want content, and choices without feeling like im on a slippery slope to cosmetic addiction, pissing away my money on designer gun holsters because i can.

Champions online did an amazing thing, when it went free to play, it looked at people like me who baught the game retail, and then paid months of subscription and went "right, hes clearly spent enough, or as much as we expect anyone to spend" and gave me access to all items, clothes and powers.

I want a large lump some, so i can get it out of the way and start playing the game. 40 pounds on release, and 20 for every patch. Done.

[Crator]

Well, I do know SOE gives free SC every month if you have a sub. So, that's kind of like what you want, without lump sum. Plus, what if they come out with new stuff all the time.

[Wayside]

No.

I like the risk/reward proposition that the micro-transaction model presents to developers. Throw something in the game without thinking about it, without really making sure that the community will value that addition, and you risk making very little or no money on it.

On the other hand, if you release 10 features or items and ALL of them are great, you stand to gain a great deal more in terms of profit from people who choose to buy most or all of them.

Furthermore, micro-transactions grant companies unique insight into what customers truly find valuable in a game. Its one thing to lead a forum crusade in favor of or against a feature or item. Talk is cheap. It's another to actually be willing to pay for a thing. Purchase habits and trends are going to give SOE some of the most reliable feedback possible as people are put in a position to vote with their money.

Lastly, it's self regulating. There's no real danger that someone in marketing or sales at SOE is going to get carried away with prices. That's a lesson CCP had to learn the hard way not too long ago. You can only charge what the market will bare, and unlike bundling everything into a massive expansion, micro transactions allow customers to pick and choose what features they truly find valuable - BEFORE spending their money.

That went longer than I thought it would, but there it is. My 2c. :P

[n2q0_matrix]

The motivations change if they don't have to work for our money anymore.

FreeToPlay is very Capitalistic...which is a good thing. The Market will keep the game fresh...if it fails, it will be due to the game and not the marketing or scamming.

[Quovatis]

They have always gave assurances that hacking will not be a problem. If that is indeed the case, the FTP model will work fine. But if hacking is indeed an issue, then, yes, it could be a disaster.

[Sabin]

The motivations change if they don't have to work for our money anymore.

FreeToPlay is very Capitalistic...which is a good thing. The Market will keep the game fresh...if it fails, it will be due to the game and not the marketing or scamming.

I suggest an initial fee (be it whatever, $40, $30), in addition to a free-to-play market.

They have always gave assurances that hacking will not be a problem. If that is indeed the case, the FTP model will work fine. But if hacking is indeed an issue, then, yes, it could be a disaster.

Imagine if hackers help take control of a vital base. GMs just won't be able to work fast enough to stop this - by the time they do, the damage could already be done.

GMs are important, but to realistically believe they can stop hackers before the damage is done is ludicrous. This is a living world. So all of my hard work capturing something can be thwarted by hackers - and there will be no end of round to fix it.

[Froglicker]

Im not against having a small startinng fee (5-15 dollars) and starting off with an equivalant amount of SC for the account. It'd reduce spammers, griefers, and people who make multiple accounts just to keep eyes on empire troop movements

[Gonefshn]

I think what the game is offering deserves a box price. No subscription is still a ridiculously attractive prospect and would carry the game just as well as full on F2P IMO. Adding box price will help with slightly fewer hackers and bringing money to the game. I think at this point PS2 has so much buzz they could easily get away with a box price. Well maybe not at this point because they already promised F2P but they could have had a box price from the start and been fine IMO if not better.

[Sabin]

I think what the game is offering deserves a box price. No subscription is still a ridiculously attractive prospect and would carry the game just as well as full on F2P IMO. Adding box price will help with slightly fewer hackers and bringing money to the game. I think at this point PS2 has so much buzz they could easily get away with a box price. Well maybe not at this point because they already promised F2P but they could have had a box price from the start and been fine IMO if not better.

Yes - unfortunately I agree. There is no way to go back. I guess I'm just chasing a dream. :(

[maddoggg]

To be honest if i believed that there could be enought people buying the game and playing it i would be all for a 1 time pay only.
However since this is a sci fi game(and many people hate sci fi games for countless ilogical reasons)and it's more complex than your average COD clone shooters out there,i think it really needs the f2p model in order to survive.

[Blackwolf]

Sorry. Please disregard my previous thread. I would like to know how many people would actually RATHER pay for the game to dissuade hacking.

It's an odd thing when people RATHER give money than take something for free. But I would much rather have it that way and just put a big deterrent to hackers from the start. I believe this is the easiest, and most effective way from the get-go.

I am making this a poll because I find it interesting and relevant. Please give your side of the argument - I would like to see what you all think.

I'd rather have it cost 20$ up front, and when you purchase the game for that price, you get 20$ worth of station cash to spend.

This way, they guarantee that you will at least start with 20$ worth of potential add ons, but you aren't losing any money on buying the actual game.

True that F2P means more players, but no monthly fee will attract as many (if not more) players then absolutely free would. It's also a major deterent for people to go buy the game and then hack it for giggles. If their SOE account gets banned because the game is tied to it then they won't be playing again will they?

Hell a 5$ price tag would still add enough value to the game to prevent people repeatedly blasting accounts with hacks. And SOE would inevitably profit from it if they were dumb enough to.

[Sabin]

I'm not voting on this poll out of spite for capitalizing the word 'rather'.

The period goes inside of the quotes.

[Xyntech]

Cheating is a problem in box price and subscription based games. It can certainly be worse in f2p, but if ps2 plays their cards right they will be just as well off if not better off than any pay to play game. It just means they have to be extra vigilant.

So I voted no. I want the game to be free to download and free to play so that populations stay high. Bsides, f2p tends to make more money lately, so I want ps2 to be a financial success as well. Hopefully if the game makes enough money, soe won't abandon it as much as with the first game

[Stew]

You don't think they could fill a few servers up? How was PS1 able to do it with a monthly fee? (I know they had problems later on)

How is every big game out there able to get sales without giving the game away for free?

I'm not saying the game should cost $60 -- but something as a base layer of accountability.

Planetside 1 was 300 players

Planetside 2 is 2000 players

Hope you see the difference ;)

If its free to play and its no pay to win in any ways the game will be really popular and we will have enough player based to fill every servers but also enough players to pay for the game

ALso our caracter will be server specific ;) so if their is low numbers of player in the server you choose first youll be stuck their with a low player base is thats you want really ? it happen in many MMO and it sucks

F2P is the best way to go

[Redshift]

If you want the game to last longer than a year you need the amount of players a f2p gets

[Mechzz]

Anyone who wants animations should be able to pay for this by a one-time fee.

Then I would like, by payment of a similar one-time fee, to be able to shoot those b*ggers while they're role-playing into their vehicles.
(jk)

[Wolfhound]

My biggest concern isn't with hackers but with griefers.

tl;dr : One time fee supported by f2p model would help stop griefing not just hackers.

What's to stop an entire outfit creating new accounts on the opposite Empire and just TK'ing until they can't TK anymore, then either hopping back on their mains, or creating new accounts?

For example even one new player, particularly at launch when people are likely to be more trusting, could create a new account, cert galaxy, pick people up and just drop them over a volcano, or crash them into a cliff.

There's no foolproof way of automatically stopping this, otherwise players could be punished for simply making mistakes. And whilst CSRs could be called in to ban these players, again, griefers would have to do a fair amount of teamkilling for them to be confirmed as griefers rather than noobs. Banning noobs for crashing isn't going to be good for business...

A one time fee for the game in addition to the f2p model would be a good way to stop this and if the fee was small it would likely be deterent enough to stop mass griefing without damaging the size of the player base.

[Fanglord]

I've said this before, I love that its f2p; but I hope there is a bundle for around the price of a full game that includes a full games worth or large % of content unlocks.

[Gamer]

If you want the game to last longer than a year you need the amount of players a f2p gets

False statement. CoD:MW is still being played by a ton of players years after release. TF2 was played by an insane amount of players for years before it became F2P. The same can be said with many other games. You just need to make a good game and the players will come.

[Noivad]

I voted FTP. I have purchased a lot of games, and no matter what you pay for them there are hackers. Some companies are more effective in dealing whith their hackers then others. I have not seen any increase in the amount of hackers in FTP games. It rarely affected my game any how. Just kill the hackers or bots.

I like what world of tanks has in their game. You can just click on a persons name and report them if you think they are a bot or playing unfairly. If enough people do it to one player they check that players account and ban them if they are hacking.

Higby said that they will be able to tell if any player is doing something that is not allowed and will ban people who do. I don't think it will be a problem. In any event speculation is pointless untill we actually see what happens in game.

[MonsterBone]

I have no problem throwing money at this game but free is better because it equals more players.

As for hackers the free model means you can not ban people by user name. BUT you can ban them by IP, hardware ID and unique hash codes. All the better if you dont announce how you do it.

[p0intman]

DUST514 is asking for a one-time fee to purchase the game, and that fee is being translated into aur that people can use ingame for purchasing gear and shit.

If you do, do this. One time fee + station cash equivilent to said one time fee and free from there on.

[razor851]

DUST514 is asking for a one-time fee to purchase the game, and that fee is being translated into aur that people can use ingame for purchasing gear and shit.

If you do, do this. One time fee + station cash equivilent to said one time fee and free from there on.
I must speak retard because I understand what you're saying. That's a pretty nifty idea!

[p0intman]

I must speak retard because I understand what you're saying. That's a pretty nifty idea!
Have you considered that I am in fact not retarded to begin with?

[Sabin]

Planetside 1 was 300 players

Planetside 2 is 2000 players

Hope you see the difference ;)

If its free to play and its no pay to win in any ways the game will be really popular and we will have enough player based to fill every servers but also enough players to pay for the game

ALso our caracter will be server specific ;) so if their is low numbers of player in the server you choose first youll be stuck their with a low player base is thats you want really ? it happen in many MMO and it sucks

F2P is the best way to go

According to Forbe, PC Gaming has grown exponentially. Common sense points at that too. A lot of us in our late 20's, early 30's grew up playing PC games, and alot of us have stuck with it. Introduce a newer generation who were basically breast fed by electronics and BAM.

Also, FPS games are very popular, as well are MMOs.

BF3 and COD:MW3 sold in the MILLIONS. Both FPS Multiplayer games. Both charging a initial fee. And yes, both riddled with hackers because they can switch to another dedicated server, which is not an issue with PS2.

Guild Wars sold in the millions.

Now - regarding the "more people will play if it's free." I agree, more people will INITIALLY play when it's free. But more people will be there in the long run if you have that initial charge. Griefers and hackers will be vastly minimized, because no one wants to keep buying the same game just to log on and hack it. Well, maybe SOME do, but I assure you, many more will if they don't have to buy it again.

If you have the delusion that GMs will make everything better, you must not know what it takes to determine if someone is griefing or hacking. The damage will be done before action is taken, and then another account will be made. Well, that is unless SOE hires hundreds, if not thousands of GMs at the call, but something tells me that will not fit into their business strategy. And even then, the damage will most likely have been done.

This current strategy will make SOE the most money, and they are a company in the business of making money.

DUST514 is asking for a one-time fee to purchase the game, and that fee is being translated into aur that people can use ingame for purchasing gear and shit.

If you do, do this. One time fee + station cash equivilent to said one time fee and free from there on.

I actually think this is the best idea I've heard. Make the item they purchase non-tradeable so if they get caught hacking and banned, they still lose their item instead of being able to drop it off on another account.

I know it's been mentioned because on this thread. Props to those who had the idea. I think it's near perfect.

[noxious]

What about premium servers? You pay X dollars to buy the game and then you get access to a subset of servers that are only accessible if you paid for the game.

[HeatLegend]

One time fees can't support MMOs. /thread

He never said anything about replacing Micro-Transactions with this so I'm sorry but. /ReOpenThread

[Rumblepit]

i vote yes ... and why???? will keep out 90% of the hackers.

[Sabin]

What about premium servers? You pay X dollars to buy the game and then you get access to a subset of servers that are only accessible if you paid for the game.

I feel that would split the audience, which would lead to certain servers not being nearly full.

[DarkChiron]

DUST514 is asking for a one-time fee to purchase the game, and that fee is being translated into aur that people can use ingame for purchasing gear and shit.

If you do, do this. One time fee + station cash equivilent to said one time fee and free from there on.

Honestly, I'd rather not have to put down $60 right away, even with them giving me equivalent Station Cash. I got alot of computer upgrades to make and won't have much money sitting around for awhile.

I think I'd almost rather have a subscription where you get the equivalent in Station Cash along with a minor discount on purchases made with Station Cash. I think that would be delightful.

[Talented Maori]

Voted No, paying won't stop hackers..., pretty sure some of them also have money! Also 'cos the Devs said free and I tend to not tell people how to do what it is they do.

[Vydofnir]

If it wasn't for the F2P model I probably wouldn't even consider purchasing the game. My income goes almost exclusively toward keeping a roof over my head and food in my stomach, so I indulge in a game purchase only rarely. I generally avoid buying and playing online games because I have come to expect hackers, griefers, exploiters, and all sorts of unsavory types, even when those games have $60 price tags. Even if SOE were to charge a minimal one-time fee that would translate into station cash, I still might be unwilling to make the initial investment because I would be expecting griefers regardless of their business model.

If this game turns our to be half as amazing as it's shaping up to be, I will have no problem throwing as much of my hard earned money at it as I possibly can, but only if I can do so on my own terms. I want to see SOE make big money off this F2P business model, because I would love to live in a world where the consumer is able to dictate exactly what a game is worth. If SOE does a great job making and maintaining PS2, I will gladly pay them as much money as I can spare as often as I can spare it; If they fail to do so (and I sincerely doubt this will be the case) they won't get a dime out of me. This business model holds SOE accountable for making sure that their game is top notch and continues to be so well after release.

It seems to me that their business model is a highly profitable one assuming they keep their customers satisfied. If hacking and griefing becomes a game-killing issue, SOE loses their paying customers. I sincerely doubt that SOE would adopt this business model if they didn't feel that they could profit from it, nor do I feel that they would fail to invest those profits into ardently maintaining and moderating their game. I'm sure that if SOE makes money off the F2P model, that money will be put to good use making sure that they keep their paying customers happy. The developers have so much faith in their ability to make and maintain this game that they are offering it for free, I see no reason to doubt them.

[Gamer]

Honestly, I'd rather not have to put down $60 right away, even with them giving me equivalent Station Cash. I got alot of computer upgrades to make and won't have much money sitting around for awhile.

I think I'd almost rather have a subscription where you get the equivalent in Station Cash along with a minor discount on purchases made with Station Cash. I think that would be delightful.

There is no way you pay your own bills; if you do, you're not in a very good financial situation for a reason. You're telling me you're short on money, and you'd rather pay for a game every month indefinitely than just pay once? Logic fail -_-


Slightly off-topic nerd rage:
I find the F2P model that other games use disturbing. I miss the old days of just paying $50 upfront and getting the content for free rather than the other way around. When they released something, it was a huge part of the game in some form or way. I don't want any game developer wasting time on some stupid green jacket or a pointless blue shirt for my character. That has no effect on the game. I want the developers to concentrate on new maps, new guns affecting gameplay, new storyline, new characters, or even part 2/3/4/5 of the game. You cant afford it? Fine. Just wait until it's $10 like I do. Now it's all "Dur Hur, I want a shiny rainbow over my hat and a gun with glitter on it so i can make other 10 year olds jealous!"

Think this doesn't affect PS2? Guess again. Two/Three years down the road, they will run into the same problem that TF2 has. Instead of working on the next game (TF3/PS3), the developers will milk this as far as they can. You won't be getting that brand new game and brand new experience:

SOE: OK guys, it has been three years. We can either start development on the much bigger and better PS3 for the next year, or we can take a week and make almost the same amount of money (if not more) by making a space suit pack for $20....Yeaaaa let's go with the space suit!

Anyway, I know this is in vain and the trend is going into F2P, and that it won't stop anytime soon because Sony is a business and the F2P model makes them money. Believe me, I've heard it all before. I'm just hoping that developers at least don't make the games pay2win. That's the reason that I'm willing to give games like TF2 and PS2 a chance. And Sony better not use the "you can't complain about the crappy service and hackers because you paid nothing for the game" reasoning that so many other F2P games have fallen into.

I'd rather pay a fee upfront, but if it's going to be free, I'm glad that people like DarkChiron will be paying for the game for me :)

[DarkChiron]

There is no way you pay your own bills; if you do, you're not in a very good financial situation for a reason. You're telling me you're short on money, and you'd rather pay for a game every month indefinitely than just pay once? Logic fail -_-

I said I'd like the option to give them a small subscription if I wanted. Not to require it. Sometimes I have alot of extra money, sometimes I don't.

I do pay my own finances, and myself and my family live comfortably. But toward the end of the year, all my extra money goes toward getting my kids presents, because their happiness means more to me than my own. If a game came out around that time (which people have hinted will be the case), I wouldn't have the $60 I would feel comfortable spending on myself.

So the tldr version: Fuck you for your knee-jerk judgements on my life and don't post to me again.

[Daffan]

Something inside me gets me to say yes;

hackers, idiots and i guess money all adds into it, however

I do realize that they like free due to the large amounts of population etc..

[Sabin]

Do you have stock in Sony? Give it a rest.

Nothing I've posted hints that I want whats best for Sony's profits. Nice ignorant, one line post that adds nothing to the conversation though.

[Gamer]

I said I'd like the option to give them a small subscription if I wanted. Not to require it....

So the tldr version: Fuck you for your knee-jerk judgements on my life and don't post to me again.

Nothing in your post suggested anything about an option. Subscriptions are also usually mandatory. Don't blame me for your lack of proper communication. However, I will take your request and not respond to your posts again.

[Sabin]

I said I'd like the option to give them a small subscription if I wanted. Not to require it. Sometimes I have alot of extra money, sometimes I don't.

I do pay my own finances, and myself and my family live comfortably. But toward the end of the year, all my extra money goes toward getting my kids presents, because their happiness means more to me than my own. If a game came out around that time (which people have hinted will be the case), I wouldn't have the $60 I would feel comfortable spending on myself.

So the tldr version: Fuck you for your knee-jerk judgements on my life and don't post to me again.

Dark, why isn't waiting a month or two after Christmas an option? J/W

[disky]

No. A free game ensures that the players will stick around longer. Any sort of paywall deters potential squadmates and opponents. I like the one-time pay idea, with payout in SC (though if it were implemented it should be no more than $5-$10), but ultimately fewer players will even try the game if they have to pay for it, and Planetside is not a very well known IP. They're banking on the model to change that.

[Sabin]

Tonite I saw rivaL a popular clan on BF3 talking up PS2 on Twitch. PS2 is going to be a success. Winning brings profits.

Ok, thats nice. Have you read anything on the thread? My point isn't whether they will be initially profitable or not. It's about how they will deal with hackers and griefers creating new account.

From everything I've read and seen, that is a losing battle. My suggestion is sort of like a firewall. Not allowing them in to begin with. What I've seen everyone else suggest is sort of like scanning you computer AFTER there's a problem.

Sure, you get rid of em eventually, but the damage has been done.

[DarkChiron]

Dark, why isn't waiting a month or two after Christmas an option? J/W

It is. I'd rather not. The thread's title asks what I'd rather have. So I asked myself:

'Would I rather get the game right away or have to wait for it?'

Seemed simple.

[Saand]

No I wold rather they don't charge for the game. The game was build with F2P in mind I would want to believe that new accounts will have restrictions in place to make sure griefing and hacking is kept to a minimum.

That being said I would love to see some kind of class specific specials at account creation where you get station cash, some unique items and no restriction for new accounts at $12 for a specific class or 60$ for all classes.

[Anderz]

No. The Free 2 Play model encourages the developer to work harder for our money, as we get to use the product before we decide to spend any money on it. It also puts greater importance on customer service and increases the longevity of the game.

Furthermore, for a game that is meant to be played with 1000s of players, the game has a better chance of surviving and reaching capacity over the coming years.

It also makes it easier to play alongside any friends who are broke, or just on the fence about the game in general. This way, they have no excuse to not give it a shot.

So all in all, I think the F2P model is perfect for this game.

(Also, hackers have more money than most gamers; how do you think they afford the subscription to the hacks?)

[Sabin]

It is. I'd rather not. The thread's title asks what I'd rather have. So I asked myself:

'Would I rather get the game right away or have to wait for it?'

Seemed simple.

Seems shortsighted to me, but to each their own.

No. The Free 2 Play model encourages the developer to work harder for our money, as we get to use the product before we decide to spend any money on it. It also puts greater importance on customer service and increases the longevity of the game.

Furthermore, for a game that is meant to be played with 1000s of players, the game has a better chance of surviving and reaching capacity over the coming years.

It also makes it easier to play alongside any friends who are broke, or just on the fence about the game in general. This way, they have no excuse to not give it a shot.

So all in all, I think the F2P model is perfect for this game.

(Also, hackers have more money than most gamers; how do you think they afford the subscription to the hacks?)

Valve with TF2 updated that thing for years without it being f2p. That was a raving success. When it became f2p, it focused more on making money, and less on important gameplay updates.

F2P make it have a better short-term possibility of getting 1000s of player, but I fear the long term will suffer once people get tired of running into, and having to report hackers every day.

I'm not talking about pro-hackers - they can cause problems no matter what. I'm referring to so-called "script kiddies," who will be the majority of hackers.

[Gamer]

No. The Free 2 Play model encourages the developer to work harder for our money, as we get to use the product before we decide to spend any money on it. It also puts greater importance on customer service and increases the longevity of the game.

Furthermore, for a game that is meant to be played with 1000s of players, the game has a better chance of surviving and reaching capacity over the coming years.

It also makes it easier to play alongside any friends who are broke, or just on the fence about the game in general. This way, they have no excuse to not give it a shot.

So all in all, I think the F2P model is perfect for this game.

(Also, hackers have more money than most gamers; how do you think they afford the subscription to the hacks?)

1) Since when is releasing an update with what basically amounts to skins encouraging them to "work harder"? Last I checked, it's easier to release micro-transaction items than it is to release major updates. Plus, if this were true, then why are there so many crappy f2p games out there? According to you, your model motivates them to do otherwise.

2) Hackers don't pay for subscriptions to hacks. Only the script kiddies that don't know any better do that. Don't you think a more advanced hacker (or a script kiddie with some sense) could also hack a hack to make it free? All it takes is 1 hacker and a couple of torrent packs or rapidshare links to spread it around for free.

[Dreamcast]

I would pay, no doubt about it.....But I think is best for Planetside to be F2p....I feel it would get way more players thus become more mainstream thus make more money which will benefit the community.


The only they must do to not fail are IMO......No Pay 2 win which they said they wont....and it shouldn't take me 10 years to unlock a weapon or a vehicle.


I shouldn't feel as I need a booster to unlock stuff.

[Gamer]

At the end of the day Sony already answered this question. F2P.

At the end of the day, you didn't understand the point of this topic.

We all know Sony won't change it now or ever. If you don't like a good hypothetical topic to keep us busy while PS2 gets released, there are plenty of other threads in this forum.

[Sabin]

At the end of the day, you didn't understand the point of this topic.

We all know Sony won't change it now or ever. If you don't like a good hypothetical topic to keep us busy while PS2 gets released, there are plenty of other threads in this forum.

Additionally. At the end of the day we can discuss what we want to discuss. I wanted to see people opinions, and defend my own opinion.

Oh, and then there's this:

This is some very interesting feedback and we appreciate it. We have absolutely no intention of charging for the game, but concerns regarding hacking and free accounts are of course being considered.

You complain about the thread, yet RadarX appreciates it. Isn't that ironic? None of your posts have added to the discussion - they have all been sarcastic and arrogant.

Obviously SOE is not going to change it, but we can all still have an opinion, eh?

[Anderz]

1) Since when is releasing an update with what basically amounts to skins encouraging them to "work harder"? Last I checked, it's easier to release micro-transaction items than it is to release major updates. Plus, if this were true, then why are there so many crappy f2p games out there? According to you, your model motivates them to do otherwise.

It encourages them to work harder because, unlike a one-time purchase, they do not have your money yet. They therefore have to earn it over time, and a game like PS2 is not going to turn a profit unless it retains a sizable player base who remain invested in the game for years to come. And in order to retain that player base, it's imperative the developers keep them engaged. If there's a bug, it's crucial that they fix it. If there's a feature being demanded by the community, it's in their best financial interests to fix it.
This may be true of traditional boxed releases to an extent -- as product loyalty will ensure the players come back for the sequel -- but not to the extent it will here, where SOE's revenue stream hinges entirely on players sticking with the game long after they've installed it.

You also have to remember that F2P, in gaming years, is a relatively new model still finding its feet. Many F2P games have been crappy because many developers mistook free to play for pay to win, believing that to be the only way they could turn a profit. They were wrong, since balance is essential to the enjoyment of any competitive game. The backlash against that model, however, has been huge; a P2W game will seriously struggle to return a profit now that there are so many F2P games on the market, and gamers expectations of them are increasing to that of a boxed AAA game.

2) Hackers don't pay for subscriptions to hacks. Only the script kiddies that don't know any better do that. Don't you think a more advanced hacker (or a script kiddie with some sense) could also hack a hack to make it free?

Are you sure about that? Hackers certainly do pay for hacks, and if they don't, it's generally for outdated and poorly coded hacks that get picked up very quickly by even the likes of Punkbuster. Expert hackers/coders who write their own hacks are not that common, and those that do will not find much satisfaction in a game that they can't "win" by topping a leader board, nor run the risk of doing anything suspicious with an admin on every server.


Valve with TF2 updated that thing for years without it being f2p. That was a raving success. When it became f2p, it focused more on making money, and less on important gameplay updates.

F2P make it have a better short-term possibility of getting 1000s of player, but I fear the long term will suffer once people get tired of running into, and having to report hackers every day.

TF2 was not built as a F2P game, and therefore is an apples and oranges comparison to Planetside 2.

Valve updated the game until it reached the end of its typical life cycle, like any game developer does. During this time however, the F2P revolution began, and Valve saw an opportunity to make a quick buck and extend the life of the game.

So by the time TF2 went F2P, it had already run the course of its post-release support schedule, with all the major bugs being eliminated and any planned content being well and truly introduced. It's a safe bet that most of their team would have moved on to the next project.

Also, the game was not built with the F2P model in mind -- there's only a handful of weapons to unlock, and the game had already been too well balanced to introduce any micro-transactions of a game-changing variety. Thus, their micro-transactions became gimmicky and cosmetic, as that kept the game stable and created a nice new trickle of revenue (+ thousands of new steam accounts) they would otherwise not have.

[Gamer]

very well thought out responses Anderz. I'm curious though. Do you really think there's been an evolution of F2P games into true F2P (not P2W) games? I know Android/iOS is a slightly different court, but the boom there of "f2p" games has all been p2w. I seem to be seeing more and more of that every day and I'm hoping it won't be the same on the PC platform.

[Anderz]

very well thought out responses Anderz. I'm curious though. Do you really think there's been an evolution of F2P games into true F2P (not P2W) games? I know Android/iOS is a slightly different court, but the boom there of "f2p" games has all been p2w. I seem to be seeing more and more of that every day and I'm hoping it won't be the same on the PC platform.

Thanks. Yeah, I'm not going to lie; I'm still a tiny bit worried that PS2 will be P2W despite my arguments to the contrary, because as you said, P2W is hardly a thing of the past just yet. The Free-2-Play model is still trying to shed that stigma. P2W games do still pop up, but a lot of them (at least on PC) are adapted from failed/failing subscription/retail games and therefore not really the best example of the future of F2P, which will not be an afterthought but integrated from day one.

As you noted on iOS and Android, other P2W games tend to be smaller games with shorter and cheaper development cycles. Since they don't cost nearly as much to produce, they don't need to retain a player base for years to come in order to turn a profit. They're built around the idea of instant gratification, which is essentially what P2W is: purchases for gamers who want an advantage without having to put in the hours to earn it. This instant gratification model also works best on mobile platforms because people tend not to "commit" to a mobile game like they do to other games, since the game play is generally pretty shallow and they might only find the time to play on the bus to work etc. That's why mobile developers are not in it for the long haul; they want their audience to be making transactions ASAP, before they lose interest in the game, and the best way to do that is make the transactions P2W. That way the player gets an instant advantage that will satisfy them until they get bored and move on to the next game.

[DarkChiron]

Seems shortsighted to me, but to each their own.

I don't agree with you about hackers. Trolls, maybe, but hackers not really.

Overall a F2P nets the company using it more overall revenue if their game is good. I want this game to succeed, so a model that gets them more money for future development is good for me.

I'm not going to discuss the topic beyond this. Seems rather silly overall to be worried about.

[Gamer]

Thanks. Yeah, I'm not going to lie; I'm still a tiny bit worried that PS2 will be P2W despite my arguments to the contrary, because as you said, P2W is hardly a thing of the past just yet. The Free-2-Play model is still trying to shed that stigma. P2W games do still pop up, but a lot of them (at least on PC) are adapted from failed/failing subscription/retail games and therefore not really the best example of the future of F2P, which will not be an afterthought but integrated from day one.

As you noted on iOS and Android, other P2W games tend to be smaller games with shorter and cheaper development cycles. Since they don't cost nearly as much to produce, they don't need to retain a player base for years to come in order to turn a profit. They're built around the idea of instant gratification, which is essentially what P2W is: purchases for gamers who want an advantage without having to put in the hours to earn it. This instant gratification model also works best on mobile platforms because people tend not to "commit" to a mobile game like they do to other games, since the game play is generally pretty shallow and they might only find the time to play on the bus to work etc. That's why mobile developers are not in it for the long haul; they want their audience to be making transactions ASAP, before they lose interest in the game, and the best way to do that is make the transactions P2W. That way the player gets an instant advantage that will satisfy them until they get bored and move on to the next game.

Ah yes, I forget to take into account the other types of gaming (social/casual) and their players' different mindsets.

I think we can all agree that PS2 is taking a step in the right direction though. Let's just hope they stay true to their word on hacking, sidegrades, and customer service in general.

[Sabin]

TF2 was not built as a F2P game, and therefore is an apples and oranges comparison to Planetside 2.

Valve updated the game until it reached the end of its typical life cycle, like any game developer does. During this time however, the F2P revolution began, and Valve saw an opportunity to make a quick buck and extend the life of the game.

So by the time TF2 went F2P, it had already run the course of its post-release support schedule, with all the major bugs being eliminated and any planned content being well and truly introduced. It's a safe bet that most of their team would have moved on to the next project.

Also, the game was not built with the F2P model in mind -- there's only a handful of weapons to unlock, and the game had already been too well balanced to introduce any micro-transactions of a game-changing variety. Thus, their micro-transactions became gimmicky and cosmetic, as that kept the game stable and created a nice new trickle of revenue (+ thousands of new steam accounts) they would otherwise not have.

True. But don't be surprised when alot of the new things coming out are aesthetic. I really don't have an issue with F2P, as long as there is an initial fee. I think it's a fine model for those not wanting to pay a subscription - that is what actually sold me on PS2. I will never pay a subscription for a game, but I absolutely do not mind the initial fee, especially when I know they are providing the servers and continual support.

My true worry is the fact that anyone will be able to continuously make new accounts. Griefers, hackers, whatever. I seriously hope I am wrong though. I have really been looking forward to this game. I have such fond memories of PS1 - running through canyons, getting shot at by snipers. Oh, what fun!

Anyway, thank you for the thoughtful response. :)

[SwiftRanger]

Let PS2 remain free-to-play and keep on emphasizing that.

That being said, you do need something extra (monetizing the hardcore, as long as the content doesn't split up the community and the price is fair) and a certain retail presence. A special box containing some goodies/freebies would do a lot already. Just market it very clear that these are optional/extras.

Age of Empires Online did something like this (although it was much less generous with its free content back then, gonna be better in the future) by putting a Premium Civilization pack into stores. At 20$ or so I bought it instantly because I already had loads of fun with the beta.

Don't underestimate what retail could still mean to an MMO, even a free-to-play MMO. Especially in Europe retail is still king and people aren't as eager to pay through online means.

[Toppopia]

Let PS2 remain free-to-play and keep on emphasizing that.

That being said, you do need something extra (monetizing the hardcore, as long as the content doesn't split up the community and the price is fair) and a certain retail presence. A special box containing some goodies/freebies would do a lot already. Just market it very clear that these are optional/extras.

Age of Empires Online did something like this (although it was much less generous with its free content back then, gonna be better in the future) by putting a Premium Civilization pack into stores. At 20$ or so I bought it instantly because I already had loads of fun with the beta.

Don't underestimate what retail could still mean to an MMO, even a free-to-play MMO. Especially in Europe retail is still king and people aren't as eager to pay through online means.

I kind of liked Age of Empires Online, until i got to the point that i had to pay to keep on going, and i was like "Nope, screw that." And i never played it again.

And Higby has said that they will never divide the community so if any new content comes out, everyone has access to it. But one idea they could do is a premium server where only people that pay can go play there and they get content early to 'debug' it, and since they are paying people, then those people also might enjoy not having the F2P low lifes that you sometimes get. And it would help fund the game. And the community wouldn't be divided, and it would let the devs get early feedback about items in each new patch in case they are over powered or bugged and such.

[Kran De Loy]

I kind of liked Age of Empires Online, until i got to the point that i had to pay to keep on going, and i was like "Nope, screw that." And i never played it again.

And Higby has said that they will never divide the community so if any new content comes out, everyone has access to it. But one idea they could do is a premium server where only people that pay can go play there and they get content early to 'debug' it, and since they are paying people, then those people also might enjoy not having the F2P low lifes that you sometimes get. And it would help fund the game. And the community wouldn't be divided, and it would let the devs get early feedback about items in each new patch in case they are over powered or bugged and such.

Would work when/if PS2 is hugely successful and has multiple continuously poplocked servers going.

[Admiral Blue]

A one time fee could help to keep out the dirty Brazilian peasantry that tends to infest any free game.

[Redshift]

False statement. CoD:MW is still being played by a ton of players years after release. TF2 was played by an insane amount of players for years before it became F2P. The same can be said with many other games. You just need to make a good game and the players will come.

those games require 16 players to work.....

[Mikenumbers]

I've been watching and waiting for this game a long time, I was more than willing to pay a full games price for the game before they announced it would be free-to-play so I voted yes.

I guess I'll help support the game via micro-transactions instead, looking forward to pimping out my Mosquito. :3

[Greenthy]

I wouldn't mind. But I know people that wouldn't be playing the game if it wasn't free.
(People I've introduced to League of Legends years ago and still play it without paying for anything)

And thus I enjoy the fact that I'll be able to play with these people, if they find the game fun enough.
Thus I can also understand some of the simplifications made from PS1 to PS2.

[Khorneholio]

This is some very interesting feedback and we appreciate it. We have absolutely no intention of charging for the game, but concerns regarding hacking and free accounts are of course being considered.

What I've wondered concerning this is...

Are you guys going to at least require a credit card to associate with the account? This seems totally reasonable to me. You could ban a hacker's card number, and even though they could sign up again with another... one would assume that they would run out of credit cards eventually. It would be just one more tool to help prevent a portion of hackers while being no real inconvenience to legitimate players.

[Tatwi]

No, but I would love to be able to buy the disks.

My "rural broadband internet" is slow as hell. In fact, it's ONLY reason why I have yet to play DCUO (though I have been downloading a little here and there).

Here's what I'd pay for:

$49.99
- FULL Installation DVDs (as minimal patch downloading at launch as possible).
- "Exclusive" toy figure or modest sized die-cast vehicle. You'd be able to see this through the blister package, as there would be different ones to choose from.
- Cloth maps of the planets.
- 500 Bonus Station Cash.

$4.99 each
- The other Planetside 2 toys that didn't come in my box!!

[GuyFawkes]

I'm an original ps1 player, and due to that I would be willing if need be pay for the game and sub.

Howether the last year or so I have tried one or 2 ftp games ,lotro, eq2 to name a couple of decent ones. Aion went ftp rcently, wow is twitching in that direction slowly.

The point is boxed sales act as a barrier now. People have been bitten hard with crap games for a while and economy isnt great overall. Paying 40-50 quid on a bet and hoping the game is ok dosen't cut it any more.

[Flaropri]

I would much rather have it that way and just put a big deterrent to hackers from the start. I believe this is the easiest, and most effective way from the get-go.

:huh:


In what world does having a cost for a legal copy of a game deter hackers?

I mean, I'm so glad that WoW has both purchase costs and subscription fees because that has certainly cut down on people getting their accounts hacked, on people creating private servers with illegitimate copies, and on people using hacks to increase their stats/items/level.

Oh, right, it didn't.


There are two main things that have helped cut down on hacks in most every multiplayer games I know of. 1. Authenticators (only for protecting accounts, and still not foolproof by any means). 2. Active GMs looking into problems.

Some anti-cheating software has helped, but it can usually be bypassed given enough time, so you still need people actively looking into issues.

Now, what I will say is that an upfront cost could help fund the already planned GMs and be a decent financial boost to help make sure that the developers don't follow in the esteemed steps of the makers of Reckoning or, sadly THQ (it looks like), but I don't think it would be necessary if the game is actually sustainable through micro-transactions which is the goal anyway, and if you have to rely on those initial purchases to fund GMs then they won't last long.

Ultimately, having an entry fee will limit the number of players, but it won't generally limit the ratio of people that decide to cheat or mess with characters via hacks vs. those that don't, and if anything it would probably increase those that try to create illegitimate servers.

(Yes, I know the main concern of the OP is that there will be players using hacks to cheat.)


There are pros and cons, in theory, you could have the entry fee make IP bans more important, but I'm fairly certain that it won't be nearly as effective a deterrent as a lot of people think it would be. Then there is the con of losing a lot of player-base. Planetside is all about community-driven gaming, having the players themselves decide what is important to do, where to fight, and what to fight for. In comparison to Guild Wars 2, WoW, Vindictus, or other script-based games, Planetside is vastly improved by having more players... and vastly more humbled in the absence of a thriving community.


Would I mind spending $20? No, I'll probably end up spending that much just buying Zebra and Cheetah skins (pending pricing) simply as a thanks to the developers and for the heck of it. However, I know many that can't or won't play if that kind of price is enforced (even if you get stuff from it), and those would be players that would enrich the experience for most everyone else, and might eventually decide to contribute financially as well if they can get in the door free.


I think a few players out of hundreds and thousands managing to hack and get around an IP ban some times is a worthy price to pay for having a much larger community... particularly since having an entry fee isn't going to reduce the overall impact of cheaters (in fact, given fewer players, an individual hacker will have more impact on a given engagement).



Having an OPTION to pay up front would be awesome though, sort of LoL style where you get bonus (non game-changing) stuff etc... but then I suspect that's what Membership is for.

[Zidane]

Hakers will hack:P

[Shinjorai]

I think if you charge for the game even though it may deter some of the hackers, the hackers will still be there regardless. The problem is that if you make it B2P then that cuts down on the potential member base which this game needs to thrive. So if they do that theyre creating a barrier they could avoid by making it free to play and thus draw people in. Once theyre hooked on the game theyll be willing to buy things from the cash shop etc. Its actually a lot better business model than B2P because in the long run they stand a much better chance of making more money i believe. Plus this way none of your friends are left out. Everybody can play. Its a win win for the company and the playerbase i think.


I like the idea somebody suggested about the credit card as an extra identifier with no charge on it to prevent people making multiple accounts if theyre caught hacking. All in all though hackers are a reality, any system created can be reverse engineered in time I think the key to anti hacking is to keep the system that prevents it constantly evolving and have multiple fronts of protection. I think what SOE is doing with the dedicated team of people theyre going to have just to watch out for hackers along with whatever software solution they decide on is pretty close to if not the ultimate solution definitely close to as a good as it gets. Theyve got a lot of experience from the first game ive got faith theyll do the right thing and keep it under control. Look at it this way, if they use the buy to play method theyve already got your money, if they use free to play, they are more apt to try to keep the service good so youre likely to invest in the cash shop and get your money that way. Its true what they say, if you wanna get to the truth, follow the trail of money.

[Craftyatom]

If you need a lot of people to play a game, making it free is the best way to fill those slots.

Also, I want my friends to try it out with me, and they're not gonna pay even $20 for some game that they might like because their one friend recommended it. I would gladly pay for the game, along with everyone on these forums, but I feel like maybe my WoW buddies wouldn't.

You get a larger fanbase and a more connected fanbase if everyone can hop in and play.

[infected]

i'd be fine with both. $50 up front, and then no subscription, but supported with the cosmetic shop and exp boosters.

the $50 up front being an extra layer of deterrent to kids who download hacks and get banned and can't just bypass the ban with a new free account (hardware bans possible?)

[Lonehunter]

would like to know how many people would actually RATHER pay for the game to dissuade hacking.

I feel like a total idiot for choosing an option in the poll, because hacking and cost aren't connected in anyway.

Please consider 1 less vote in the Yes column

[Sabin]

I feel like a total idiot for choosing an option in the poll, because hacking and cost aren't connected in anyway.

Please consider 1 less vote in the Yes column

I've brought up this point way much. The majority of hackers in FPS games, and the like, are people who come across a hack to d/l (aimbot, etc.) They will fear getting the ol' ban hammer if they need to purchase the game again to play. Unless they are very wealthy, I don't see anyone being ok with constantly purchasing the game after they have been banned.

I am not talking about super-duper-crazy-felonystatus hackers. They will be there no matter what.

Hence, hacking and cost being connected.

[ZaBa]

Sure are a lot of people casually hating on poors ITT.

Since, y'know, people who literally can't afford to spend on luxuries are the only group significantly put off by paywalls.

Unless they are very wealthy, I don't see anyone being ok with constantly purchasing the game after they have been banned.

Some people spend their disposable income on a new tv or car; redecorating their house; going on holiday. Others will prefer to spend hundreds of dollars a year crapping up other people's online experience. If people have fun doing something, they will spend money on it. C'est la vie.

[Flaropri]

What I've wondered concerning this is...

Are you guys going to at least require a credit card to associate with the account? This seems totally reasonable to me. You could ban a hacker's card number, and even though they could sign up again with another... one would assume that they would run out of credit cards eventually. It would be just one more tool to help prevent a portion of hackers while being no real inconvenience to legitimate players.

Requiring a credit card would limit who can sign up in the first place, since not everyone who would otherwise be a welcome player would have one. Plus, if you're going to tie a Credit Card number to an account and have an active ban-list of Credit Cards there is the potential for that database to be hacked, putting all the players (including past players) of PS2 at risk and not just those that saved their credit information with SOE for easy of purchasing SC and other goods.

Besides, IP bans perform similarly in this regard.

[Stew]

Simple as thats NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Anything thats will ruins the players based ill be agains it so iam agains this tread ! This is Bad to the bones !

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ! thanks bye

[Rumblepit]

this is a fact!!!! the only real way to stop a hacker is to hurt his wallet.1 time fee will cut down on 90% of all hacking.

lets say boob number 1 gets caught for hacking and is banned. he now has to dish out another 15$ for the game and another 15$ for updated hacks, gets caught again has to dish out another 15$ for the game and 15$ for updated hacks. this will get old fast...soe will make money off hackers getting caught, most wont even bother after the first time. soe will make bank on the money they save on hack prevention. and we get a game with 90% less hackers......... all because of a 1 time fee.otherwise you will see 40% of all the players in game hacking,community will crumble , soe wont be be to afford the money needed to keep all the hackers out, content goes to shit , game dies. ive see this happen many times. unless you charge a 1 time fee, or it is illegal to hack in that country,"china ,korea" your f2p skilled based game will die from hackers.....admins have never won. hackers always do.

they are free to make accounts over and over again!!! but!!!! there is a but,if they can make a verification system for account creation then they can keep most of them at bay.

ill , be happy to help out as many people as i can if this is the case. ill buy u the game if you cant afford the 1 time fee.

[kertvon]

If PS1 had hackers and it was purchase/sub model, then PS2 will be the same. Charging for the game isn't going to prevent hacking. PS2 by design allows for a vast amount moderation and community reporting due to the limited number of servers in the game vs other games with 64 player server caps that promote high server counts.

[ZaBa]

this is a fact!!!! the only real way to stop a hacker is to hurt his wallet.1 time fee will cut down on 90% of all hacking.


Gonna need to see some study data to back up this assertion fella. :thumbsup:

[Rumblepit]

Gonna need to see some study data to back up this assertion fella. :thumbsup:

i take it you have never played a skill based f2p game.... its not like your going to see 5 to 10 hackers a day. if they have the option to create accounts at will then you will see 50 to 100 hackers a hour. you need to play team fortress, apb,combat arms,ava,or bf and see what its like. i have banned more hackers in a day then most have ever seen. you have no clue what these people are like.

most asshats that hack are not your working class adults, they are sad little boys and girls with deep rooted childhood issues, or lazy bums that suck off their parents and live in the basement.the only way they will stop hacking is if they cant afford it.

you need to take sometime, play some f2p games, then come back here and make a constructive response to this thread.