paid server?

[wraithverge]

I know it's too early to say, but is there a possibility of a single server where only payed members can log into? Depending on the audience that this game attracts, I prefer people at least old enough to have a credit card, or know that if they get banned, they are actually losing real money. I know it may be bad for the business model you are shooting for but I think payed attracts a higher quality of gamer. Maybe just an optional sub server that costs a few bucks a month?

Ideas on how we can make this work so far. Please add more, just adding them here for summary or TL;DR

I suggest being able to buy in for large amounts of auraxium or pay cash for it.

Loco suggested tying it to the station pass model.

Sylphaen suggested anyone who's spent any money can access it

Rivenshield brought up the paid client, which is a confirmed no.

[SgtExo]

I dont see this happening at all.

[Stardouser]

Well, everyone loves to cite that PS2 is an MMO when it supports their case in certain issues.

And as it happens, Premium servers are not unheard of in MMOs. Legends server in Everquest for example.

[Goku]

I dont see this happening at all.

This. Fragments the community and I don't see many people hopping on board. If by paid server also means you get even more stuff then what a regular prem sub (if it happens) may afford that isn't going to happen. That splits their business model.

[SFJake]

If paid only meant "you have to have spent at least 10$ on the game", I'd actually like it. Sub servers, no. Thats dumb when you have free ones.

I'd think the game would have enough servers eventually to have at least one of those. Unless the game is struggling to have one server filled at a time. This really depends on the population in the game, it definitively could hurt it.

Tough. I don't expect it at all myself.

[NCLynx]

This will never happen.
Extra Credits: Microtransactions (The Escapist) - YouTube

[Xyntech]

I tend to think this is a bad idea and won't happen, but if there are enough servers it may not have as large of a problem of fracturing the community at least.

But personally, this seems like a bad band-aid style solution to help dealing with hackers and griefers. I'd much rather see them successfully deal with hackers and griefers on all servers if possible. If they are able to keep those issues to a minimum without resorting to charging money for an account, I don't see why a paid only server would be necessary.

Honestly, I've seen way too many assholes, hackers and griefers in buy to play and subscription based games to think that it would help much. F2P can increase the number of problem players, but charging money certainly doesn't get anywhere even remotely close to eliminating them. Good anti-cheat and anti-grief systems, along with responsive GM's will be a lot more important to keeping the quality of a server high. As for the rest, as far as players just being assholes without breaking any rules, that's going to come down to the community self policing itself.

[wraithverge]

yeah, that's why I said it might be bad for the business model. Splitting playerbase only makes sense if there's a really good reason for it. So how can we make this work? How about you can spend X auraxium to buy access to this special server as well? This way the people on the server are those who are vested in the game, OR those who have payed and are therefore vested in the game? We are a creative bunch, how can we make a game where we are not constantly flooded with people who have nothing to lose? It's the ring of gyges dillema, or in modern terms, keyboard courage, where people turn to jerks when they have minimal to no consequences to their actions? If all you have to do is create a new account people will cheat, be jerks etc. We learned this lesson from fodderside.

[Loco]

I wonder if they will have a "Gold Club" prescription server to work with the SOE station pass.

[Stardouser]

I tend to think this is a bad idea and won't happen, but if there are enough servers it may not have as large of a problem of fracturing the community at least.

But personally, this seems like a bad band-aid style solution to help dealing with hackers and griefers. I'd much rather see them successfully deal with hackers and griefers on all servers if possible. If they are able to keep those issues to a minimum without resorting to charging money for an account, I don't see why a paid only server would be necessary.

Honestly, I've seen way too many assholes, hackers and griefers in buy to play and subscription based games to think that it would help much. F2P can increase the number of problem players, but charging money certainly doesn't get anywhere even remotely close to eliminating them. Good anti-cheat and anti-grief systems, along with responsive GM's will be a lot more important to keeping the quality of a server high. As for the rest, as far as players just being assholes without breaking any rules, that's going to come down to the community self policing itself.

I agree with you that if there are enough servers overall, having a few variable content servers(of any kind, including simple premium servers) won't harm anything.

I'm just curious why you automatically jumped to assuming that such a server was for the purpose of avoiding hackers and griefers though :) lol, it could always be premium in other ways than just that.

[wraithverge]

I'm just curious why you automatically jumped to assuming that such a server was for the purpose of avoiding hackers and griefers though :) lol, it could always be premium in other ways than just that.

fodderside or "reserves" is my guess, we tried the free thing. Of course better anti cheat methods are built in from the ground up now.

[shadar]

I highly doupt that they would do that. The only thing somewhat simmarl to that i could see being done is to have a exclusive sever for some of the more respected community members and poeple who know what there talking about to be basicly one patch ahead of the rest of the severs. That way they can catch any ballance isues or bugs that may have gone un noticed if only 50-60 poeple had tested it. Could also prevent a major screw up like the BFR were

[sylphaen]

Unless they make it so anyone who has spent at least 1$ since PS2 launch can get on them, there may be population issues. And even then there could be population issues.

[haticK]

but then how will i make 12 year olds rage

[Rivenshield]

Nah.

/shakes head

I still think they need to charge a modest amount for the client, though. It won't *prevent* double-boxing spies/saboteurs, hackers, etc.... but it'll certainly harden the target.

but then how will i make 12 year olds rage

You evil purple bastard. :D

[Arovien]

Completely understand and agree that f2p games indirectly foster a "i got nothing to lose if i troll/cheat" mentality. Yet, paid servers is not the way to solve this issue. Its been mentioned that administrating the in-game community 24/7 via support and GMs is a top priority for SOE. We can hope that such a policy is enough to stop trolling, negative attitude players, and cheaters.
The developers have the responsibility to deal with straight-up malicious individuals as fairly and swiftly as possible. It is not enough to just temp ban or review a case for a few weeks.

[RoninOni]

If paid only meant "you have to have spent at least 10$ on the game", I'd actually like it. Sub servers, no. Thats dumb when you have free ones.

I'd think the game would have enough servers eventually to have at least one of those. Unless the game is struggling to have one server filled at a time. This really depends on the population in the game, it definitively could hurt it.

Tough. I don't expect it at all myself.

^This.

DCUO has 3 levels of players.
Free, Premium, Subscription.

Now I don't want any subscriptions for PS2 so we'd just have Free and Premium

where Premium players have spent 500-1000 station cash ($5-10) in game.

Differences should be minor.
*5-6 second respawn instead of 10 (they mentioned something about longer respawn delay for free players... not my idea, but so long as Free is reasonably short to not be annoying, it's not a terrible idea)

*Priority queing on overpopulated servers/continents

*Access to premium only servers. These should be relatively limited in Qty.

*These premium servers would be safe from griefers as there is real penalty associated with excessive griefing (locking of account and loss of funds used)

*Minor permanent xp boost (10%?)

I think the desire for premium servers is basically because of peoples ungodly desire to troll just because they can (even though what allows them too is exactly the type of business model we should be supporting by NOT trolling)

I'm fine with any/all/none of those... really doesn't matter to me much honestly.

[Eyeklops]

This. Fragments the community and I don't see many people hopping on board. If by paid server also means you get even more stuff then what a regular prem sub (if it happens) may afford that isn't going to happen. That splits their business model.

I have heard the "fragment" comment a ton of times. Personally think it's bullshit because this is not EVE, we cannot all fit onto 1 server anyway. Also, a paid server is likely to have about 1% of the hackers the free servers do. I would gladly pay some small one time fee for that.

[Hessy17]

I paid a sub for ps1 and I will pay a sub for ps2. I wouldn't mind a few servers set aside for the people who subed up.

[wraithverge]

hessy17 I'm pretty sure you are the vocal minority on this one. I'd be willing to pay a one time fee or a couple bucks a month, but only if the pop was there and I don't think we could manage even a single full server with a $10-$19 sub in today's market.

How about a micro trans loggin system? In order to log into the server it costs 5 sc, that's like a nickel every time you login, but you can pick any existing server to pull your character from? This way your main stays with your f2p friends, but when you feel like hitting up the paid server, you lose nothing by doing so, or alternatively you can switch factions as wanted?

This is assuming faction isn't locked per account and not just per server.

[exLupo]

I have heard the "fragment" comment a ton of times. Personally think it's bullshit because this is not EVE, we cannot all fit onto 1 server anyway.

EQ2 had a pretty bad fragmentation problem when they segregated the community. However, back in November, SOE saw which part was was stagnating and which was thriving and got rid of the pay-only servers altogether.

The company's general motto is "Free to play. Your way." and all of their maintained titles are free and without segregation. There's no reason to expect that PS2 will be any other way. It doesn't follow industry standards and doesn't follow SOE's new mandate.

Also, a paid server is likely to have about 1% of the hackers the free servers do. I would gladly pay some small one time fee for that.

I said the exact same thing years ago with PS1. How wrong I turned out to be. Tech and CS management fix hacking problems, not pay barriers. People pick the games they want to play, pay or no and then decide if they're going to cheat. Open games are harder to police but the only time that cheaters are low is when the system is tight. It's got little to do with pay gating.

[snaffe]

EQ2 had a pretty bad fragmentation problem when they segregated the community. However, back in November, SOE saw which part was was stagnating and which was thriving and got rid of the pay-only servers altogether.

The company's general motto is "Free to play. Your way." and all of their maintained titles are free and without segregation. There's no reason to expect that PS2 will be any other way. It doesn't follow industry standards and doesn't follow SOE's new mandate.



I said the exact same thing years ago with PS1. How wrong I turned out to be. Tech and CS management fix hacking problems, not pay barriers. People pick the games they want to play, pay or no and then decide if they're going to cheat. Open games are harder to police but the only time that cheaters are low is when the system is tight. It's got little to do with pay gating.
Maybe station cash for grief-invulnerability? No? Bad idea? :cool:

[Firearms]

Why does a paid game not have hackers or trolls? Surely it just invites a better class of hacker or troll....
Would it not be better to invent a back end solution for grief accounts, even something as crude as IP ban would stump a certain percentage of "casual hackers", if there is such a thing.
Maybe we'll get to see lynching's by fellow housemates, which would be fun....

[exoteror]

I don't see premium happening as SOE have said "players = content" I belive that charcters are tied to a server and what happens a year or 2 down the line when Premium players stop playing?

Simply the premium servers would die due to a lack of good fights and free servers survive with the income of fresh cannonfodder.

[Maarvy]

If Hacking is a big problem I would like to see paid servers but in the way they there open to anyone who spends a few bucks and are directly linked to your free server account .

Theres really no need for them otherwise .

Why does a paid game not have hackers or trolls? Surely it just invites a better class of hacker or troll....
Would it not be better to invent a back end solution for grief accounts, even something as crude as IP ban would stump a certain percentage of "casual hackers", if there is such a thing.
Maybe we'll get to see lynching's by fellow housemates, which would be fun....

Paid games still have hackers we all know that .

However actual loss of money is a greater deterant than .... well nothing . This is a terrible conversation btw , however if unlike a fully paid game a hacker has a choice to risk a paid account or a free one which will most of them choose ? .

[Firearms]

however if unlike a fully paid game a hacker has a choice to risk a paid account or a free one which will most of them choose ? .

I understand the question, but it is a bit of a non question IMO

If a 1$ lottery pays out 500,000$ and a 5$ lottery pays out 1,000,000$ which one will most of them choose?

A hacker/griefer in a paid game is the same as a 5$ ticket...it gives a bigger prize griefing payed players....Ultimately it's up to SOE to sort it and as said above, will adding a pay barrier do that? Nah.

[Zulthus]

I wouldn't mind servers for people who pay the premium subscription.

[GuyFawkes]

I hope they dont repeat what ftp brought to eq2.

Log in as ftp >'' GO SILVER'' spams in your face every 10 minutes mid fight ''10 bucks upgrades you to silver blah blah''

After an hour or 2 of this annoyance, you pay 10 bucks to get rid of the spam. A second later ''GO GOLD!!'' becomes the new norm every 10 minutes.

You then realise ftp was just a con: you could have gone gold straight away, and had 10 bucks to spend on the store instead.

Free to play isnt a choice, its an illusion.

So the idea of a 'paid server' is defunct from the get-go ;)

[ZaBa]

This. Fragments the community and I don't see many people hopping on board. If by paid server also means you get even more stuff then what a regular prem sub (if it happens) may afford that isn't going to happen. That splits their business model.

Actually I am all for the idea of never having to deal with borgy snobs ever again. Go have fun on your subscribers only island, please don't bother coming back.