Concerns about the F2p model

[BoldarBlood]

currently soe is deleting and moderating critical threads about the monetization. i think they know that they broke their promises.

after i read today that they will sell weapons directly for real money, i am very concerned. for me it is clearly pay 2 win (also by wikipedia definition) to give out gameplay relevant advantages for real cash. sure, you can get it also by playing, but that will take time and till then you have to play against people who just bought their weapons like a a2a missle pod.

the whole system is clearly designed to drive up the frustration so that the players sink tons of money in the shop instead of giving good motivations and creating a good gameexperience by a balanced levelsystem, like you would get it in a fullprice game.

what bugs me too with selling weapons directly is the question what happens in the future? a constant flow of new weapons which are needed to keep your chances up?

[Sturmhardt]

what bugs me too with selling weapons directly is the question what happens in the future? a constant flow of new weapons which are needed to keep your chances up?

This is the only point of all you mentioned that concerns me.
I have no problem that they are selling the weapons for cash if you can acquire them by playing too (if you are not playing 6 months for 1 weapon). We always knew this was happening and I always understood it because someone has to pay the bills.

But if they keep adding new weapons every month they will screw up the balance eventually. I hope they won't.

[BoldarBlood]

This is the only point of all you mentioned that concerns me.
I have no problem that they are selling the weapons for cash if you can acquire them by playing too (if you are not playing 6 months for 1 weapon). We always knew this was happening and I always understood it because someone has to pay the bills.

But if they keep adding new weapons every month they will screw up the balance eventually. I hope they won't.

like in every other f2p game they have to add more and more stuff to the shop to keep the revenue up.

[sylphaen]

Even if I prefer a subscription system, I do not think SOE broke their promises. They never promised a free game. You pay with playtime or you pay with money.

You have access to all certs:
- Play a lot and you can unlock.
- Pay a lot and you can unlock.

Consider all the other games that sell you DLC and expansions: it's the same thing.

I do however understand your frustration. I also feel that it is much easier to feel frustration and unease with F2P than other models.

If it may help you, consider PS2 as a subscription game that allows a portion of their players to participate for free; of course, they get less benefits.

And if you REALLY feel angry at SOE, do not pay for anything and play for free. If their game is still fun to play, then F2P for PS2 works (you spend time in the game and provide challenge to other players, you are compensated with the opportunity to play the game). If it's not fun, you will naturally stop to play.

[EVILPIG]

I don't know why we need a new thread, but I disagree with the OP. I don't consider the current model P2W at all. Everything can also be earned in game. All of this has been known for some time.

Offer a cash only overpowered weapon and then we'll talk about P2W.

[BoldarBlood]

If it may help you, consider PS2 as a subscription game that allows a portion of their players to participate for free; of course, they get less benefits.
i would rather pay for a subscription than getting a less quallity gameplay experience for free. the grind is pretty hard and if you buy the stuff in the shop, than you would pay far more than with a subscription.

[Tooterfish]

Planetside 2 has a lot more to offer. There is popular content still missing from Planetside 1 that players are asking for that I assume are deliberately being delayed for future content patches. You only need to take a look at the ideas forum to see that, clearly, there is a limitless array of items, content and features that can be implemented later to accommodate paying players, and insure the survival of the game.

I understand F2P players are worried, and as a paying player I also don't want to be given advantages. I think Planetside 2 reaches to make us all feel like we're in a communal struggle on the battlefield. Nothing distracts me and removes me from that communal sensation more than being given more power, not to mention the double-standard that would create for what is considered a "skill-based shooter".

[xuur]

well said

[SturmovikDrakon]

Pay 2 win would imply you wouldn't be able to buy weapons through in-game means but cash only

Except this is not the case

Your three threads were closed because people were giving you multiple examples of how this is not P2W and yet you continued acting like a moron and ignoring every valid point made

[Mox]

F2p is always p2w! Accept it. the only no go is to sell items that give advantage and cant be earned by playing.

[sylphaen]

i would rather pay for a subscription than getting a less quallity gameplay experience for free. the grind is pretty hard and if you buy the stuff in the shop, than you would pay far more than with a subscription.

If you would rather pay for a subscription, then choose to do so ! Why so angry about letting people play for free...

I loved PS1, I subscribed to that game for years.
I'm still not sold 100% for PS2 but I have high hopes for that game. I may decide to buy alpha squad (or not) and just play for free until I feel better about the game.

Most people will likely choose to play for free and pay items as they go or unlock them.

Do you really expect SOE to run without money ? Would you work for no salary ? People who pay for the game (with money) also pay for the free players (who give their time).

No one wants a game that will only be fun for paying players. No one wants P2W because even in the paying crowd, some have more affordable income than others. We want a fun game for everyone and a lot of players. However, someone has to pay for the servers, developers, taxes...

Stop thinking anything is free, you will feel better. As a matter of fact, just stop thinking about money and judge the game through FUN. Give PS2 a try and see if you have fun with your time. There is no reason not to play if you are having fun with the game. Similarly, if the game is not fun, even paying players will stop playing.

Change your mindset and you will enjoy more things.

[Tooterfish]

F2p is always p2w!

This statement isn't true.

[Beerbeer]

I like their model, at least insofar as much as I understand it.

I'm not sure if I'll get the membership to see how quickly I can get the certs I want or just buy the stuff I feel I need right away to reach the style of play that I enjoy. Maybe I'll do both, but I need a good, real baseline to see how it all falls inline.

But yeah, for those with a lot of patience, you can get stuff that impatient people like myself might get right away. However, I actually really don't mind the grind, but there's some things that I'll probably want right away to make the rest if the grind more enjoyable.

To each their own, though.

[SixShooter]

currently soe is deleting and moderating critical threads about the monetization. i think they know that they broke their promises.

after i read today that they will sell weapons directly for real money, i am very concerned. for me it is clearly pay 2 win (also by wikipedia definition) to give out gameplay relevant advantages for real cash. sure, you can get it also by playing, but that will take time and till then you have to play against people who just bought their weapons like a a2a missle pod.

the whole system is clearly designed to drive up the frustration so that the players sink tons of money in the shop instead of giving good motivations and creating a good gameexperience by a balanced levelsystem, like you would get it in a fullprice game.

what bugs me too with selling weapons directly is the question what happens in the future? a constant flow of new weapons which are needed to keep your chances up?

Holy shit! That is some crazy breaking news. Oh wait, it's totally not.;)

The rate at which XP is earned, thus earning cert points, seems fairly generous and not at all frustrating. WOT and T:A felt very frustrating for me in that regard but I haven't felt that frustration in PS2. I think it's a good model and I hope it works out well for them since I plan on playing for a long time.
:cheers:

[SFJake]

Any F2P model that isn't a 100% free besides cosmetic exists against the costumers and not for it.

It'll always be a joke, and paying for this is a disgrace. They ARE going to be nickel and dimming people with overpriced **** instead of just letting you pay an appropriate one-time fee to properly enjoy a game.

As long as people think this kind of shit is acceptable, gaming will be shit. For god's sakes, stop ruining every FPS in existence with F2P garbage. F2P IS ANTI-CONSUMER DAMNIT.

[Bags]

I heard LoL was P2W.

o wait

[Kail]

Any F2P model that isn't a 100% free besides cosmetic exists against the costumers and not for it.

It'll always be a joke, and paying for this is a disgrace. They ARE going to be nickel and dimming people with overpriced **** instead of just letting you pay an appropriate one-time fee to properly enjoy a game.

As long as people think this kind of shit is acceptable, gaming will be shit. For god's sakes, stop ruining every FPS in existence with F2P garbage. F2P IS ANTI-CONSUMER DAMNIT.

Let's pretend for a second that you actually will need to spend money for game-impacting features. Say, a continent that you need to buy access for, and a new class you need to unlock via the cash shop. Lets also pretend you spend a grand total of $60 to unlock it all.

How is that different than any expansion to any game you've ever bought? Besides of course it's not called an expansion. And that you only have to buy the features you care about.

[Gonefshn]

You can earn all the weapons through playing the game and not paying a cent.

But the main point not many of you are mentioning is the fact that the weapons your going to be buying with real money aren't any more powerful than the guns you start out with. The guns are all different for different situation but your never buying a gun that will flat out make another obsolete. You can easily kill players with the starting guns.

not P2W

[EisenKreutzer]

As long as none of the weapons you can buy for real money are flat out better than the default ones, then the game will never be pay to win. The developers have stated time and time again that they will avoid pay to win as hard as they can, and I tend to believe them.

Simply having the option to spend real money on a weapon does not automatically make the game pay to win.

[Hamma]

It becomes pay to win when either the threshold to earn it in game is to high, or weapons are offered for cash only. Or allowing you to buy cert points with SC.

It's not P2W, SOE hasn't done anything they wouldn't tell us they would do.

[Jaybonaut]

Sidegrades are p2w? Um, no.

[BoldarBlood]

You can earn all the weapons through playing the game and not paying a cent.
that doesnt matter. if you can buy gameplay relevant items with real cash, then it is pay2win. thats a standing definition. even in wikipedia.

you have to play a long time till even out your disadvantage, while buyers have all the stuff instantly. they are also not "sidegrades" like the devs are saying. having a max with 2x the same weapons for example is mandatory to use it in any field of activity. so the standard model of the max is useless in compare to a bought combination like 2x antiinf weapons. andere there are lots of these cases.

ps:
"Pay-to-win" is sometimes used as a derogatory term to refer to games where paying for in-game items can give the player an advantage over other players, particularly if the items cannot be obtained by free means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtransaction

every other "interpretation" is just marketing bullshit from the companies, who are trying to benefit from a reinterpretation of the term. pay2win allways was and is selling gameplay relevant items. the stupid phrase that "you can get every for free too" exists in nearly every pay2win game out there. but its designed the way that i will be extremly hard after a while to keep up and to get stuff, if you are not paying. its a trick for naive people who believe in marketing lies.

[Crator]

"Pay-to-win" is sometimes used as a derogatory term to refer to games where paying for in-game items can give the player an advantage over other players, particularly if the items cannot be obtained by free means.

derogatory: expressive of a low opinion

[BoldarBlood]

derogatory: expressive of a low opinion

lol. never give up, never admit you are wrong! even if there is proof! thats the spirit! :lol:

[Crator]

Dude, this topic has been beatin' to death. We argued our asses off about if way before beta even started. Those that hated it and still consider it P2W have left out of anger or accepted it and keep watchful eyes on the shop to ensure there isn't anything that is considered P2W. Almost all PS vets know that a monthly payment model for a FPS game doesn't work well so we support the F2P model.

EDIT: I think it would even be fair (not considered P2W) if there were some weapons that had something about them that would be considered an upgrade instead of a side-grade, as long as that weapon is tied to Battle Rank.

[Phantomdestiny]

that doesnt matter. if you can buy gameplay relevant items with real cash, then it is pay2win. thats a standing definition. even in wikipedia.

you have to play a long time till even out your disadvantage, while buyers have all the stuff instantly. they are also not "sidegrades" like the devs are saying. having a max with 2x the same weapons for example is mandatory to use it in any field of activity. so the standard model of the max is useless in compare to a bought combination like 2x antiinf weapons. andere there are lots of these cases.

ps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtransaction

every other "interpretation" is just marketing bullshit from the companies, who are trying to benefit from a reinterpretation of the term. pay2win allways was and is selling gameplay relevant items. the stupid phrase that "you can get every for free too" exists in nearly every pay2win game out there. but its designed the way that i will be extremly hard after a while to keep up and to get stuff, if you are not paying. its a trick for naive people who believe in marketing lies.

actually 2 AA weapons on a max is a side grade because it makes you more vulnerable to infantry than if you had 1 AA and 1 heavy cycler in the case of the TR but it makes you more effective against air units

[Ghoest9]

Almost all PS vets know that a monthly payment model for a FPS game doesn't work well so we support the F2P model.



this

[Babyfark McGeez]

Hmmm, playing like half a year to unlock sidegrades or pay for them straight up and have an advantage over people without them (vehicle/aircraft performance/utility/defense sidegrades, aa max, ammo types, scopes, etc.).

It may be debatable, but it's atleast hovering over the grey line of "pay2win"...and tbh i see it more on the wrong side of that line.

"Cosmetics and boosters" only would definetely not give this slight bad taste in the mouth.

[Dagron]

That's a naive dream, cosmetics and boosters alone won't generate enough revenue to support a game that needs to maintain servers online.

You can view the fact that they are selling sidegrades as p2w or not, but you can't argue with the fact that by paying a little for every weapon you want, up to a total of $60 over the whole period you play the game, is the exact same thing as paying $60 just to access the game, with the bonus that you get a ton of "content" to play with you (by content i mean non-paying players).

The trick is to make the non-paying players have a fun experience too, and by not giving paying players powerful advantages that would frustrate the non-paying players, then there is a better chance everyone will still have fun (even if some have a little more fun than others).

[BoldarBlood]

actually 2 AA weapons on a max is a side grade because it makes you more vulnerable to infantry than if you had 1 AA and 1 heavy cycler in the case of the TR but it makes you more effective against air units

thats not a sidegrade. the mixed standard max is useless in every role. it gets killed by anti-infantery max and doesnt have enough firepower for AA support. you need to buy a second gun to even out your chances and thats pay 2 win.


Almost all PS vets know that a monthly payment model for a FPS game doesn't work well so we support the F2P model.
i blame soe and not the model. when i quit ps1 it was because soe was too lazy to fix bugs and bring in new content. months went by till they introduced a bomber and a aa vehicle and then no new content came for ages because they worked on a pay-expension. let alone the bugs... how long did it take till they did something against the backdoor bug? 6 months? they just didnt earned my subscription. but i was willing to pay.

"Cosmetics and boosters" only would definetely not give this slight bad taste in the mouth.
no, but LoL showed that you can offer other stuff without giving gameplay advantages.

[Crator]

i blame soe and not the model. when i quit ps1 it was because soe was too lazy to fix bugs and bring in new content. months went by till they introduced a bomber and a aa vehicle and then no new content came for ages because they worked on a pay-expension. let alone the bugs... how long did it take till they did something against the backdoor bug? 6 months? they just didnt earned my subscription. but i was willing to pay.

There were many reasons for PS1 not doing as well as it should have. Many of them you listed here. But, SOE knows that they can make more money by getting people interested in the game first, then having them pay. The F2P model helps to achieve this goal.

Perhaps this day and age the root issue of a subscription model is not as bad as it was back in 2003. But I'd still wager that the F2P model helps on all fronts with the subscription model issue as long as it is implemented properly and as you say, not P2W. As someone else stated a few posts above, they need to make it fun for the non-paying players to get them hooked so they will buy some things. The more people you have try the game the more likely they will buy something. More profits.

[Babyfark McGeez]

I don't think the "server costs" argument is that valid, they definetely need the money to pay their employees, rents and working costs though (because technically, all planetside 2 related works are currently expenses with only the preorders as revenue in the soe budget).

That being said i'm ok with the cash shop of planetside 2, but still - naive or not - the only way to prevent this bad taste (that i'm not the only one having) is to restrict cash shops to the aforementioned "cosmetics and boosters" only (or atleast no direct "content buying").

[psijaka]

All they are selling is time.

As long as it doesn't take like 100 hours to earn the certs to get that gun you want, and that the gun is not obviously more powerful than the default weapons, then I'm happy enough with their F2P model. I'll probably be dipping into my pocket from time to time for new weapons (as long as I get the chance to trial them first). SOE have to make money somehow, and a subscription model will just not attract sufficient players to make the game pay. Fact.

But if they start selling obviously mnore powerful weapons, or stray into the realm of renting boosters for damage, accuracy, whatever, then I'll be showing the game a clean pair of heels; I had enough of that kind of nonsense with Battlefield Play4Free.

[BoldarBlood]

There were many reasons for PS1 not doing as well as it should have. Many of them you listed here. But, SOE knows that they can make more money by getting people interested in the game first, then having them pay. The F2P model helps to achieve this goal.
i know and i was just saying that the subscription model works and if it doesnt its because the companies screwed up their game, like EA did with their stupid starwars wow clone with voice over for 300 mill.

All they are selling is time.
no. example (like several times written before): 2 player start new - both are equippted with a max suit - player A has bought a second cycler minigun, player B uses the standard max, both have equal skill and equal positions - player A wins because he bought the better stuff.

thats clearly p2w.

[Dagron]

And then one week later player B buys the second cycler with certs without spending one cent. Time is money.

[psijaka]

And then one week later player B buys the second cycler with certs without spending one cent. Time is money.

Correct.

[FireWater]

As long as the weapons that are available for purchase are

A) Available for free via in game time (aka cert points)

B) Doesn't completely dominate the other weapons in its class

Than its appropriate.

SOE has to make money. Honestly some people need to get outside of their house and recognize that.

F2P is not anti-consumer. Requiring an upfront purchase without completely knowing what you are getting is. That is one of the dumbest comments I have seen in a while.

[Babyfark McGeez]

Maybe they need to point out more that you cannot buy "sidegrades" directly, because that actually slipped past me, and it makes things seem drastically less "pay2win".
There are still a couple of items that don't feel completely "right" (like rocket pods or double aa max) but it doesn't mean someone can roll out with a completely decked out vehicle / aircraft / gun from the start and just steamroll stuff.

Personally i don't have a problem with this system, it could have been made better to prevent these discussions but it could have also been way worse.

[BoldarBlood]

And then one week later player B buys the second cycler with certs without spending one cent. Time is money.
...and then he gets killed by player A again, because playewr A used his certs for max upgrades. ;)


SOE has to make money.
so if i stab a guy on the street with a knife and rob him its ok because i need to make money?

and since when is f2p the only way to make money in the industry? did i dreamed all those years where i played games without a f2p monetization?

F2P is not anti-consumer.
i cannot think about a sale-concept which is more anti-consumer than this :)

[Dagron]

...and then he gets killed by player A again, because playewr A used his certs for max upgrades. ;)

... and then a guy who's been playing for 2 years before both of them even downloaded the game kills them both because he has a ton of sidegra... err, maybe something is wrong with unlocks, let's just play quake 1 because then we won't need to unlock anything and everyone is on equal grounds all the time.

so if i stab a guy on the street with a knife and rob him its ok because i need to make money?

Wait, in the relationship between you and SOE are you supposed to be the victim or the robber? Because what you're asking is to enjoy the game in all the same levels as paying customers but without giving them one cent for the work and money they spent creating it... sounds to me like you are the one who stopped them on the street and asked for their money, you just didn't pull a knife.

and since when is f2p the only way to make money in the industry? did i dreamed all those years where i played games without a f2p monetization?

If you want a large player base to make things fun for the people who actually pay for the game, it's a good way to do it.

i cannot think about a sale-concept which is more anti-consumer than this :)

If i buy a couple of weapons when i start playing and then move on to actually play to get my unlocks i end up spending less than on a subscription model, maybe even less than a one-time-purchase-fee model. Seems pretty consumer friendly to me. It also seems to me that you just keep looking for reasons to complain about getting free soup instead of free lobster.

[RSphil]

as no weapon in game is overpowering i still dont think this is pay to win. every weapon has a down side. when they put a weapon in that is far better then the rest and has no down side, then i will call it p2w and be very upset.

[Dagron]

as no weapon in game is overpowering i still dont think this is pay to win. every weapon has a down side. when they put a weapon in that is far better then the rest and has no down side, then i will call it p2w and be very upset.

Now there is a legitimate concern, we need to stay tuned and if that happens pressure them to get things back to a balanced and fair state. After all we don't want to lose the free players, we need them so we can have really big fights.

[BoldarBlood]

is it true what i heard today? that soe will reduce the cert income by 50%? sounds more and more like a ripp-off to me if it is....

[Hamma]

Where was this "heard"

[Fear The Amish]

thats not a sidegrade. the mixed standard max is useless in every role. it gets killed by anti-infantery max and doesnt have enough firepower for AA support. you need to buy a second gun to even out your chances and thats pay 2 win.



i blame soe and not the model. when i quit ps1 it was because soe was too lazy to fix bugs and bring in new content. months went by till they introduced a bomber and a aa vehicle and then no new content came for ages because they worked on a pay-expension. let alone the bugs... how long did it take till they did something against the backdoor bug? 6 months? they just didnt earned my subscription. but i was willing to pay.


no, but LoL showed that you can offer other stuff without giving gameplay advantages.


And completely wrong on LOL you know how it has a free char rotation? well smart players buy characters that are counters to most of the free ones and run them during that week. I know i do, i see Katarina come up i bought and run CC heavy chars during that period. So yes they sell "upgrades" because each lane has a champ that is a counter for another so if i see Fiora come up on the rotation i know to run Yorick top (that i bought) because he is a direct counter.

[FireWater]

so if i stab a guy on the street with a knife and rob him its ok because i need to make money?
No of course not, extinguishing someone's life to obtain whatever is in that person's wallet or purse is different than a company trying to earn money for a product they release. The fact that you compare the two is actually quite revealing of your mindset, in which case I feel so sorry for you.


and since when is f2p the only way to make money in the industry? did i dreamed all those years where i played games without a f2p monetization?

Since F2P came about it made more companies switch their games to that model than P2P at least for Multiplayer titles :D


cannot think about a sale-concept which is more anti-consumer than this :)

Than I feel so sorry for you :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: F2P is the reason why games like League of Legends and other PC Titles continue to dominate the PC Market while other titles that are B2P (aka Brink) fail miserably. F2P is so powerful that current games with other models are adapting their games to it because the tradtional model doesn't work well anymore (with exceptions to CoD and other major established franchises).

I'm so grateful that you aren't in charge of SOE business decisions, what a relief!! :lol::lol:

[BoldarBlood]

No of course not, extinguishing someone's life to obtain whatever is in that person's wallet or purse is different than a company trying to earn money for a product they release. The fact that you compare the two is actually quite revealing of your mindset, in which case I feel so sorry for you.i feel sorry for you because you didnt got the point - profit doesnt excuses every method.

Since F2P came about it made more companies switch their games to that model than P2P at least for Multiplayer titles :D sure. there are enough stupid ppl out there, who spend tons of money on pay2win games, which are in the end far more expensive than normal fullprice titles.

Than I feel so sorry for you :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: F2P is the reason why games like League of Legends and other PC Titles continue to dominate the PC Market while other titles that are B2P (aka Brink) fail miserably.
so cod and bf3 failed? maybe ea and activision dreamed all those millions profit they made with it^^

[BoldarBlood]

Where was this "heard"

todays patch: -50% certs and more expensive costs for weapons. 9 days before the release they are getting out the big pricetags and screem "SURPRIIIISE!"

looks like i was right to have doubts about this f2p model.

[EisenKreutzer]

You get +100% Cert gain for buying a subscription, and not all weapons are more expensive. I saw a couple of weapons that went for 50 Cert points.

[BoldarBlood]

but they allready increased the prices and lowered the cert income to increase the grind and so the frustration. also 7.50 dollar for a single weapon is extremly expensive.

[Beerbeer]

I was surprised at the price changes and I agree I think it's a bit high if things go for $7.50 a pop.

I studied tf2's catalog quite a bit as I found myself spending a lot if money without really realizing it and I came to the conclusion that it was because of the relatively tiny prices per item.

Steam smartly lures people into spending more as each item is dirt cheap for the most part so it doesn't feel like you're spending a lot, when in fact you are as a whole.

So they get their money from many small purchases from many people as opposed to getting more purchases of more expensive items from a select few people.

The first supports a healthy player base, the second really doesn't as they can up and leave at any time and you would be screwed.

[EisenKreutzer]

I still don't understand how purchasing weapons for real money automatically equals pay to win. You are not winning when you get a new gun, because the gun is not objectively better than the default guns, and because you can get the same guns by just playing the game.

Could anyone explain their reasoning to me?

[BoldarBlood]

I still don't understand how purchasing weapons for real money automatically equals pay to win. You are not winning when you get a new gun, because the gun is not objectively better than the default guns, and because you can get the same guns by just playing the game.

Could anyone explain their reasoning to me?

sure.

example:
2 players start at the same time with the game -> both are equippting a max suit -> player A with the standard max, player B with the dual cycler, which he bought with cash -> both player have the same skill and same position -> player b wins because he bought the more effective setup with cash

[EisenKreutzer]

sure.

example:
2 players start at the same time with the game -> both are equippting a max suit -> player A with the standard max, player B with the dual cycler, which he bought with cash -> both player have the same skill and same position -> player b wins because he bought the more effective setup with cash

That is a one on one situation though. Thats not really the focus of the game. This isn't Call of Duty, where one on one engagements are what decides who wins and who loses the game. In Planetside, tons of other factors influence who wins and loses. Also, say I bought a Burster for my MAX suits left hand with real money. Do I still win?

Now, apart from the MAX issue you point to, which other classes and weapons does this affect? Is it the same with two Heavy Assaults? Say HA 1 has the default weapon, and HA 2 has an LMG he payed real money for, that does more damage at medium range but less at long range.
Who wins?

[sylphaen]

sure.

example:
2 players start at the same time with the game -> both are equippting a max suit -> player A with the standard max, player B with the dual cycler, which he bought with cash -> both player have the same skill and same position -> player b wins because he bought the more effective setup with cash

So the free player who has an AI and an AV guns would automatically lose to a paying player who has chosen double AV or double AI ? But what about if he had double AV and faced HA players ? Or double AI and the free player had a no-upgrade no-certs tank ?

Still pay to win ?

What I see is that for a new PSU member, you sure spend a lot of effort trying to push the "OMG P2W! This game is crap, avoid it!" idea.

The truth is:
- nothing is free: what you do not spend in money, you spend in time.
- you can spend time playing this game for free
- paying players have access to THE SAME gameplay content faster
- free players ALSO have access to paying content FOR FREE. It's just slower.
- Playing for free does not mean you will not have fun or less fun than paying players.
- if you think the PS2 model is terrible, DO NOT PLAY! You'll avoid an ulcer and it's the best way to tell the devs something is wrong.

Have you tried being constructive in any single of your posts? Are you being honest in your intentions ? Instead of trying to sink PS2 before it even launches, let people play, have their fun and judge by themselves.

I do not believe I would ever say this but you are worse than a bittervet, you're just bitter.

Edit: And you sound like a SOE competitor, not a fan.
:lies:

[Saintlycow]

I still don't understand how purchasing weapons for real money automatically equals pay to win. You are not winning when you get a new gun, because the gun is not objectively better than the default guns, and because you can get the same guns by just playing the game.

Could anyone explain their reasoning to me?

Lets Say we both play heavy assault. Lets also presume lasher is amazing now that it has been fixed. We both do the exact same things until we get 240 certs.

Now you buy the lasher with your certs. So you have a lasher
I pay for the lasher with station cash, and use the 240 certs to buy armor customization and the likes.

End result.
You have a lasher. I have a lasher, and some armor customization.

It might nos seem like much, but if the trend continues, it could get out of hand quick.

[EisenKreutzer]

Lets Say we both play heavy assault. Lets also presume lasher is amazing now that it has been fixed. We both do the exact same things until we get 240 certs.

Now you buy the lasher with your certs. So you have a lasher
I pay for the lasher with station cash, and use the 240 certs to buy armor customization and the likes.

End result.
You have a lasher. I have a lasher, and some armor customization.

It might nos seem like much, but if the trend continues, it could get out of hand quick.

I like this line of argument much more than others I have seen in this thread. But I'm still not convinced. Eventually, I too will get the armor upgrades if I just play and don't pay. Or I might end up certing into a better rocket launcher and be good at other things besides shooting people and surviving bullets. There are multiple roles for me to fill, and while you certainly get your weapons and upgrades faster, I will still be a contributing member of my Outfit even if I don't pay a cent.

[BoldarBlood]

That is a one on one situation though.
you missed the point - player b wins in an even situation because he payed. you will also have endless other kinds of situation where the diffrence of a bought advantage is making the diffrence. not the skill, but the money. thats pay 2 win.

[BoldarBlood]

Edit: And you sound like a SOE competitor, not a fan.


a fan? a fan of soe? the guys who turned swg into a wow clone and ruined a great game, because they couldnt get enough? the guys who did a horrible job on fixing bugs and bringing new stuff to ps1? the guys who are trying to rip-off their customers with a cheezy f2p model? the guys who are letting prosiebensat1 run planetside 2 in europe, whichare even more worse than soe?

im a fan of planetside1+2. but not of this monetization and defitly not of a company which purpose it is to get as much money as possible from me. how could anyone be a fan of acompany? of products maybe, but of a company?

[sylphaen]

you missed the point - player b wins in an even situation because he payed. you will also have endless other kinds of situation where the diffrence of a bought advantage is making the diffrence. not the skill, but the money. thats pay 2 win.

You missed the point. If the paying player has unlocked max AA/max AI/max AV/max flamethrower/AV lockon/medic C4/inifil x12 zoom/etc..., if you catch him in a MAX with AI/AV when he has a MAX with both AA equipped on his max, he's toast (unless you can't aim).

How is that P2W ?

Don't forget it's also not you vs. all the paying players. There will be other free players and likely more free players than paying players.

a fan? a fan of soe? the guys who turned swg into a wow clone and ruined a great game, because they couldnt get enough? the guys who did a horrible job on fixing bugs and bringing new stuff to ps1? the guys who are trying to rip-off their customers with a cheezy f2p model? the guys who are letting prosiebensat1 run planetside 2 in europe, whichare even more worse than soe?

im a fan of planetside1+2. but not of this monetization and defitly not of a company which purpose it is to get as much money as possible from me. how could anyone be a fan of acompany? of products maybe, but of a company?

Maybe I should have been clearer. I said "fan" in reference to Planetside Universe being a fansite for Planetside. I am not a fan of SOE but I will defend what I think is right.

I am usually part of those who take a careful stance about SOE (eg. I'm still undecided about Alpha Squad; you can also check my post history) and there are lots of things that can be criticized about SOE and the F2P model for PS2. However, I'm a fan of Planetside and SOE are still the ones who took the risk to commercialize PS1. And to develop a sequel.

I also think it's safe to say that all companies try to get as much money possible from you. I do not know if you are an employee, a self-employed person or a rentier, but don't you try to squeeze as much money from others either ? Would SOE shareholders be greedier than ActivisionBlizzard's ? Take a step back and assess your own greediness.

What I am trying to point at is that you are being unfair in a stance that asks SOE to provide services without asking for money. No one is forcing you to pay to play. You can play for free ! Now if you if you feel the game is unfair and not fun, you are free to stop playing.

I personally would have preferred a model similar to PS1 reserves where free players have access to everything but are limited in BR (i.e. in PS2 terms, it's equivalent to being limited to one class change every 6 hours) and the paying players are on subscriptions. If you decide to not spend a single penny on PS2, you can still unlock everything for free and be on the same level of a paying player.

Let's take another case: imagine PS2 was absolutely free (ie. no one can pay anything) and a new player starts playing PS2 3 years after release. Is it unfair that you are 20 BRs and acquired 40k cert points before he did ? Would that new player have no fun playing the game and progressing his character ?

I played for months as a reserve in PS1 when I had no money: I still had a ton of fun with just Adv.Engineering, Buggies, Medic and Medium Assault. In PS2, what difference does it make if you have unlocked a full class and a paying player has unlocked 3 full classes ? Jealous he has more things to choose from ? Then get a subscription or pay items you want or play more !

I hated BF2142 unlock system: I had paid 30 USD for a game with nothing unlocked ! OMG RIP-OFF!!!
Guess what ? I still enjoyed the game when long-time players had shotguns and one-shot sniper rifles. If you hate PS2 unlock system, hate DICE and their BF franchise first. Maybe if they weren't there, we'd still have the PS1 cert system.

Without having everything (and no, paying players will not have everything either; even if they did, they cannot use it all at the same time), there will still be a lot of fun for players who decide to play for free.

In short, don't be so judgmental. Until the game comes out, no one knows if the PS2 F2P model is a failure or a success. On my end, while I did have reserves concerning F2P, I am actually quite happy to be able to create a character and log on a server for free.

[FireWater]

i feel sorry for you because you didnt got the point - profit doesnt excuses every method.

You are talking about someone robbing another person with force. PS2 is a free 2 play, without any purchase. Your analogy is a joke.

sure. there are enough stupid ppl out there, who spend tons of money on pay2win games, which are in the end far more expensive than normal fullprice titles.

And there are also players who don't pay a dime who compete and do well in the game. Most pro LoL players actually don't spend money to get champions, they earn them through play time.


so cod and bf3 failed? maybe ea and activision dreamed all those millions profit they made with it^^

Here is what I actually said:
F2P is so powerful that current games with other models are adapting their games to it because the tradtional model doesn't work well anymore (with exceptions to CoD and other major established franchises).

I think your selective quoting is an effective measurement of your knowledge and your ability to debate effectively.

Thanks so much for your time! :groovy::rofl::rolleyes::D

[BoldarBlood]

You are talking about someone robbing another person with force. PS2 is a free 2 play, without any purchase. Your analogy is a joke.
it was about the prinziple that every method is valid to reach the goal. you really should try to get the point before you start flaming and end up as a fool like now. :)


And there are also players who don't pay a dime who compete and do well in the game. Most pro LoL players actually don't spend money to get champions, they earn them through play time. but this isnt LoL, because LoL is a complete diffrent game and its one of a handfull exceptions between tousands of f2p games with a rip-off monetization. and you can call me old-fashon but to me paying 7.50 dollar for a single weapon is a rip-off.


You missed the point. If the paying player has unlocked max AA/max AI/max AV/max flamethrower/AV lockon/medic C4/inifil x12 zoom/etc..., if you catch him in a MAX with AI/AV when he has a MAX with both AA equipped on his max, he's toast (unless you can't aim).good luck catching an aa max in a biodome.


Don't forget it's also not you vs. all the paying players. There will be other free players and likely more free players than paying players.1vs1 fights happen often enough (even if there are houndreds of people in the area) and in these situations the people who buy better stuff have better chances to kill and survive. in the end it comes to simple mathematics. if someone does 2 dmg and you do 1, then you will most likely die first.


I am usually part of those who take a careful stance about SOE (eg. I'm still undecided about Alpha Squad; you can also check my post history) and there are lots of things that can be criticized about SOE and the F2P model for PS2. However, I'm a fan of Planetside and SOE are still the ones who took the risk to commercialize PS1. And to develop a sequel. but you dont have to find everything super fantastic about it to like the game. cheering to beeing riped-off seems kinda awkward.

I also think it's safe to say that all companies try to get as much money possible from you.
so what? giving up, open my pokets and say "take whatever you want, take it all, i dont care"?


What I am trying to point at is that you are being unfair in a stance that asks SOE to provide services without asking for money
noone does that. but the costs and the bussiness model are questionable.

If you decide to not spend a single penny on PS2, you can still unlock everything for free and be on the same level of a paying player.
after an endless grind while fighting against better equippted instant-buy cash-warriors. sounds very enjoyable...

Let's take another case: imagine PS2 was absolutely free (ie. no one can pay anything) and a new player starts playing PS2 3 years after release. Is it unfair that you are 20 BRs and acquired 40k cert points before he did ? Would that new player have no fun playing the game and progressing his character ?
depends on if the level system is motivating and fun or not. in nearly all f2p games its not, because they are designed to frustrate the players to pay more and more. thats the diffrence. b2p titles are designed to be fun right from the start.

In short, don't be so judgmental.
why not? this kind of business model exists since years and nearly all games are working similar. the newest patch (-50% certs and higher prices) proofed my concerns right.

[BoldarBlood]

btw. this guys sums it up:

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/cert-prices-are-ridiculous-same-goes-for-gain-rate.44240/

[Crator]

People pay hundreds of dollars in MMO subscription fees all the time. The only difference here is you can pick and choose what you want to pay for. More options for the consumer.

[Illtempered]

I just don't want it to be confusing. In PS1 we all paid the same subscription fee, and I payed it for almost 9 years. Do the math on that. Obviously, I'm willing to fork out plenty of cash for a game that's good enough. I like subscriptions because they're simple. We were all on the same level playing-field.

I don't want to constantly wonder, and have other players constantly wondering, if they're paying enough to be competitive. Don't nickel-and-dime us to death SOE. Make large, quality patches or expansions, with names like Alpha-Squad, and have no more than a few a year, ideally one. I'm also gonna get pissed-off when I start paying real money for weapons that turn out to suck, and can't be returned.

[FireWater]

it was about the prinziple that every method is valid to reach the goal. you really should try to get the point before you start flaming and end up as a fool like now. :)

Your PRINCIPLE is still false, one scenario involves a person breaking the law, the other scenario is a company charging for amenities in their game....

Again your point is flawed and misguided.

but this isnt LoL, because LoL is a complete diffrent game and its one of a handfull exceptions between tousands of f2p games with a rip-off monetization. and you can call me old-fashon but to me paying 7.50 dollar for a single weapon is a rip-off.

And Planetside 2 isn't "TOUSANDS of F2P games with rip-off monetization". I don't think $7.50 is a rip off depending on what is given in return. We may have different financial situations, I don't know.

The core problem with your argument is that you are ignoring the fact that there are plenty of games that were Buy 2 Play aka Traditional Retail Model that were garbage and terrible as well (aka ET:QW, Brink). Now when we purchase games on the PC we can't sell them back or trade them in, we are stuck with them.

In every single case, in all the F2P titles you have mentioned or not mentioned, the player gets to try the game for free. If a player is educated and decides that the game's cash shop is Pay 2 Win, than that player who doesn't want to pay to win can leave with $0 given to the developer, and the only real cost is the electricity to run the computer, and the bandwidth it cost to download the game.

The bottom line is that you have a choice to monetize, or not monetize and can still play Planetside 2 if you choose to. The F2P model forces developers to be honest in their game developement, releasing new content regularly to either attract new players or attract players that have already played the game and are trying to win them back.

That is why the F2P model is dominating the PC Market so hard. A lot of gamers have lost faith in major franchises/publishers (justifiably so imho) because they don't get the entertainment for the money that they paid, or at least they don't feel like they do. Fair enough.

F2P is a way to get a player involved, where they can spend (or not spend) money at their own pace. As of right now I see no major flaws in SOEs monetization plan.

Because if SOE created a significant difference between the HAVES and HAVE NOTs, the HAVE NOTs will go else where, and the HAVES may not be enough to sustain the game population (not just money population as well).

So far I have liked what I have seen from Sony. I think its a great a decision to go F2P, and that it was something that was acknowledged early after announcement.

[PredatorFour]

I think its a great a decision to go F2P, and that it was something that was acknowledged early after announcement.

You think its going to be great when theres lots of hackers abusing the game? Will that make people wanna pay for items when they get abused ? If you dont think this will happen you are blind, theres already hacks out there and people abusing them and its still in beta.

[artifice]

I am definitely in favor of f2p as a whole, but I don't like SOE's past f2p models. Want to use all the gear you obtained? Pay $15 a month. Now Planetside 2's f2p model is improved and I give SOE credit for that. However, I have my worries. I think $7 for the highest gun is a bit too much. I think $5 would be a little more reasonable, but then I know when I buy the gun, it's always unlocked.

The biggest concern I have is with the subscription option when they could offer most of its benefits via boosters. I wouldn't have too much of a problem if they didn't have queue priority.

[Beerbeer]

Yeah, I also think $5 should be the ceiling. It's a psychological barrier value more than anything else and has the potential to entice more people to buy. Two $5 sales is better than one $7 sale.

[Crator]

Sales 101: Start prices high and lower to increase demand

[BoldarBlood]

I am definitely in favor of f2p as a whole, but I don't like SOE's past f2p models. Want to use all the gear you obtained? Pay $15 a month. Now Planetside 2's f2p model is improved and I give SOE credit for that. However, I have my worries. I think $7 for the highest gun is a bit too much. I think $5 would be a little more reasonable, but then I know when I buy the gun, it's always unlocked.

The biggest concern I have is with the subscription option when they could offer most of its benefits via boosters. I wouldn't have too much of a problem if they didn't have queue priority.
its not only the 7,50 for a gun, but also the high unlock costs in the skillsystem. to make real progress you need premium, otherwise you would grind for ages. so they are nickel and dime you whereever they can. thats f2p.

[FireWater]

You think its going to be great when theres lots of hackers abusing the game?

Of course not I'm not sure how you could jump to that conclusion. There are cheaters is every online game out there today. It cannot be eliminated only minimized/discouraged. Counter Strike: Source was B2P and has had a ton of cheaters. Payment model is erroneous whether or not there will be cheaters in the game, or players attempting to cheat.

Will that make people wanna pay for items when they get abused ? If you dont think this will happen you are blind, theres already hacks out there and people abusing them and its still in beta.

I think natural consequences will ensue if players feel like they are getting beat by hackers all the time (and if its actually true, not just whiny players that cannot accept being outplayed). However, with that said, even games with numerous hackers were very profitable (aka Combat Arms). I think overall, most players are intelligent enough to accept that in no matter what game they play, there will always be cheaters. Its up to the admins to manage them, which in this case is SOE. SOE probably has learned from the PS1 days when game became a little stale, that the hackers came in and basically took it over. And SOE didn't learn a lesson, than a lot of us will be significantly disappointed.

Again since the game is F2P, there is no upfront purchase required to play the game. If a player downloads the game and logs in, and sees a bunch of players blatantly speed hacking, they will not likely continue playing the game, and they will be damn sure not to buy anything in the cash shop.


I honestly think you are blind to the fact that cheating can only be minimized, both from a macro perspective (i.e. patching out cheats) and a mirco perspective (i.e. player ban) SOE will have to continually fight and patch and ban players that continually break the rules. They would have to do this whether they were free 2 play, buy 2 play, or buy 2 play with subscription model.

A portion of the revenue dollars they earn via Cash Shop and Subscription will likely be spent to combat cheating. Again this is even more crucial because new players are not required to purchase anything, and leave without monetary investment.

[sylphaen]

it was about the pr...sts since years and nearly all games are working similar. the newest patch (-50% certs and higher prices) proofed my concerns right.

I thought my post was clear enough for anyone to understand that my stance about F2P is balanced. I also have concerns but we'll see how time will prove us if F2P, and the way it will be managed by SOE, was the correct choice for PS2 or not.

Here is the core of my thought:
You have the freedom to choose to play or NOT to play. You have the freedom to start playing for free and keep playing for free if you enjoy the game or to STOP if you do not like the way things are going. If you feel somewhat confident about PS2, you can buy a weapon or a few. If you feel very confident and involved in the game, there is alpha squad and/or a sub to the game (especially to avoid waiting queues on full servers).


If you think the model is wrong, instead of being only critical, propose solutions. Personally, I have trouble seeing how they can "nickel and dime" a player if he chooses to never pay a cent. And if the game is bad for free players, they will just stop playing it. And if the game is bad for paying players (let's say.... because of a low population on servers because the game is not attractive enough for free-players or low-paying players), paying players will stop paying and playing. Such a situation would be terrible for SOE's business and they would likely have to react (by easing the experience for free/low-paying players, for example).


My issue is in the way you just criticize without trying to be constructive. The only useful thing that you mentionned is that gun prices were too high and cert progression too slow: it's a valid concern. However, does it mean you would be willing to pay for weapons if they were cheaper ? Is it something that will make you choose not to play ?

In my past, I have played at paying and free games: if I did not like playing one, I just naturally stopped playing it. I see people playing EVE and World of Warcraft and I don't. Good for them if they are satisfied from the fun they get for the money they give out! Of course, if you love RTS, Starcraft 2 is a great example of a game being cheap (per hour played): you pay once and get as many hours of fun and challenge as you like.
:shrug:

MMOs have always cost more than traditional games. I do not see a problem in giving options to pay less (or nothing) to play as long as it's viable for all players. You say it will not be viable and SOE will rip everyone off. I say it may be viable and we'll see how it works at release.


In the end, I am less worried about P2W than:
- hackers
- lag/netcode
- metagame/overall quality of gameplay

If PS2's design ends up being terrible game because of P2W, then so be it: player populations will adjust accordingly.

I have one question for you I am interested in:
What do you think of World of Warcraft (monthly fee+expansions) and EVE Online payment models ? Specifically, do you feel they are a rip-off ? And do you think the success of their game came from the quality of the experience sold or their payment model ?

[Mavvvy]

Have I come across something or someone who was impossible to kill in the game with entry level weapons...no.

It can be difficult certainly against say a fully upgraded mbt, but not impossible.

The great equalizer in any teamplay based game, is well teamwork itself. Something which money can't buy.

[ziegler]

Get over it. The younger generation of gamers has let the gaming world go to shit. That's just the way it is. I blame it on facebook/flash games.
People see nothing wrong with buying levels in a game, or gold in a game. They see nothing wrong with bypassing playtime, to get an upgraded weapon that most certainly gives them an advantage for weeks or months over someone who doesnt pay.

That is paying to win even if it is temporary til the other player "levels" up to get the gun. The question becomes...how long does it take the average player to level up to get that item.... 10 hours of playtime? 100? 1000? ....

SOE will look for the sweet spot of how long they can string along the freeloaders to keep the population up and how much they make the ADHD kids cough up to bypass the wait.

Thats so much better than everyone playing on the same level playing field. :rolleyes:

[PredatorFour]

Again since the game is F2P, there is no upfront purchase required to play the game. If a player downloads the game and logs in, and sees a bunch of players blatantly speed hacking, they will not likely continue playing the game, and they will be damn sure not to buy anything in the cash shop.

Basically agreeing with me there dude after saying im wrong.

If the above happens which there is a good chance, its going to be crap for morale in wanting to play whether you pay or are new and play for free.

I really hope they slam down on cheaters. The only thing is theyre using a few methods and some of them like punkbuster have already being swept away by hackers.

[FireWater]

Basically agreeing with me there dude after saying im wrong.

If the above happens which there is a good chance, its going to be crap for morale in wanting to play whether you pay or are new and play for free.

Not really, there are cheaters in all games, no matter how much the end user pays. However, I don't believe the cheating is that rampant in PS2, and personally I haven't seen too much of it, other than someone using a lag cheat to warp around (or maybe they were just lagging). The new player experience is key to getting players to monetize.

I really hope they slam down on cheaters. The only thing is theyre using a few methods and some of them like punkbuster have already being swept away by hackers.

I hope so too, but I pray they do not use Punk Buster, I think that software isn't that effective and very intrusive.

[BoldarBlood]

Get over it. The younger generation of gamers has let the gaming world go to shit. That's just the way it is. I blame it on facebook/flash games.
People see nothing wrong with buying levels in a game, or gold in a game. They see nothing wrong with bypassing playtime, to get an upgraded weapon that most certainly gives them an advantage for weeks or months over someone who doesnt pay.

That is paying to win even if it is temporary til the other player "levels" up to get the gun. The question becomes...how long does it take the average player to level up to get that item.... 10 hours of playtime? 100? 1000? ....

SOE will look for the sweet spot of how long they can string along the freeloaders to keep the population up and how much they make the ADHD kids cough up to bypass the wait.

Thats so much better than everyone playing on the same level playing field. :rolleyes:
i cant say that i have read a post to this topic which i agree more on.

[FireWater]

Get over it. The younger generation of gamers has let the gaming world go to shit. That's just the way it is. I blame it on facebook/flash games.
People see nothing wrong with buying levels in a game, or gold in a game. They see nothing wrong with bypassing playtime, to get an upgraded weapon that most certainly gives them an advantage for weeks or months over someone who doesnt pay.

Actually gamers don't develop games, they play games. So developers have been exploring new revenue models for players to continually support them. They are a company, bitter opinions from bitter gamers don't pay the bills, revenues do. Boosts are just an ability to go through content faster. I haven't seen a weapon in this game that is so OP that it needs to get nerfed ASAP. I feel like if I lose, more often than not I was outplayed and not destroyed by something completely unfair. I would expect older generation players to not cry foul as much, it was generally found to be embarrassing behavior back in the day.

That is paying to win even if it is temporary til the other player "levels" up to get the gun. The question becomes...how long does it take the average player to level up to get that item.... 10 hours of playtime? 100? 1000? ....

Only if the weapon earned is significantly better in every dimension in every way. A "Pure Upgrade" if you will. Looks so far that is not the case in this game just yet.

SOE will look for the sweet spot of how long they can string along the freeloaders to keep the population up and how much they make the ADHD kids cough up to bypass the wait.

Sounds to me the hardcore players who choose not to spend a dime will still level up at a decent rate to earn the weapons. There maybe some catching up to do for these side grade weapons, but I don't see that necessarily as a bad thing.

Thats so much better than everyone playing on the same level playing field. :rolleyes:

There was never a level playing field in PS1, level 1's would be play against level 15's all the time. Yet somehow that is "fair" so to speak.

The bottom line is this: PS2 is going F2P, and while the model may need to be tweaked, it is certainly better than the forced subscription model of previous.

Look at EA, SW:TOR HAD to go F2P because it could not maintain subscriptions. That game was supposed to kill WoW (which BTW has a F2P model as well). Games are evolving along with a payment model that is most effective for the consumer AND the developer. MMO developers found out their games aren't worth anything without players in them to populate the world. Back when the subscription model was created, there were very few acts in town (think UO, EQ, EQ2, early WoW). Now the market is saturated with MMOs, and the subscriptions are hilariously favored towards Blizzard. Hell even CCP is struggling with EvE online and had to release a cash shop.

The subscription model is outdated in most circumstances. Companies need to turn a profit in order to keep their respective games division or even their whole company a float.

Go back to Quake if you feel that this is bullshit, honestly. Your posts make you sound like a bitter gamer with nothing else going on.

[BoldarBlood]

Look at EA, SW:TOR HAD to go F2P because it could not maintain subscriptions.
because the game sucks. its a boring wow clone with no endgame and its based on a 8 years old concept. its not even a real mmog with the whole gameworld instanced. thats why it failed. not because of the bussiness model.

[FireWater]

because the game sucks. its a boring wow clone with no endgame and its based on a 8 years old concept. its not even a real mmog with the whole gameworld instanced. thats why it failed. not because of the bussiness model.

Well they did well in initial sales (over a million) however retention of subscribers was garbage. I believe its in part that subscription based games are dying off as the model is outdated.

This is verified by most other subscription services either going F2P or adding some sort of cash shop, or both.

I'm actually struggling to find an MMO that is

A)Pure subscription based

B)No Cash Shop

C)Currently running a large number of subscribers (lets say a million and over).

Even the biggest publishers are bowing down to F2P. Its simply a more effective model for this type of game.

[BoldarBlood]

Well they did well in initial sales (over a million) however retention of subscribers was garbage.

they had over 2 million buyers, but couldnt keep many of them, because the game didn't met their expactations. the game is garbage. thats why it failed. people dont like to pay subscription fees for garbage :)

[Gonefshn]

that doesnt matter. if you can buy gameplay relevant items with real cash, then it is pay2win. thats a standing definition. even in wikipedia.

you have to play a long time till even out your disadvantage, while buyers have all the stuff instantly. they are also not "sidegrades" like the devs are saying. having a max with 2x the same weapons for example is mandatory to use it in any field of activity. so the standard model of the max is useless in compare to a bought combination like 2x antiinf weapons. andere there are lots of these cases.

But you never addressed the main thing i said in my post.
It's not pay2win if it doesn't help you win. It's pay2WIN... WIN.
I'm in the beta, you all are probably in it too. The new weapons don't give you an advantage, the starting weapons are all fine. I can kill just as easily with all the basic weapons. The things that give you power are the cert upgrades to weapons like sights etc. thats all in game though no cash.

To the MAX example. sure a double chaingun max will be more powerful than a max with 1 chaingun and 1 burster against infantry, but now if a plane sees you then you are toast. These things are all situational. If I use a "better" gun like the VX6-7 for VS then sure up close I'll have a very slight advantage over the standard pulsar carbine, but out at farther ranges I'm toast.

You pick where to put your strengths and you trade off power in one area for another. Your paying to experience more things quicker not to become more powerful altogether.

[FireWater]

Yeah boldar seems to ignore large portions of posts, guess that means he can't refute them

[Qwan]

I my self have always been against F2P model for PS2 but when they said you can also earn these weapons by just playing and paying with certs or at the time Araxium I thought ok, they just need to ensure that they balance out the amount of Certs or Araxium earned. I forsee a lot of people dumping money initially into the game, for armor, weapons and neat gadgets to add to your vehicle. I just feel that a monthly subscription would have been the way to go, which is the option I will be taking upon release of the game. As long as all weapons can be obtained threw playing the game, I dont have any issues with the current model. :D

[Qwan]

But you never addressed the main thing i said in my post.
It's not pay2win if it doesn't help you win. It's pay2WIN... WIN.
I'm in the beta, you all are probably in it too. The new weapons don't give you an advantage, the starting weapons are all fine. I can kill just as easily with all the basic weapons. The things that give you power are the cert upgrades to weapons like sights etc. thats all in game though no cash.

To the MAX example. sure a double chaingun max will be more powerful than a max with 1 chaingun and 1 burster against infantry, but now if a plane sees you then you are toast. These things are all situational. If I use a "better" gun like the VX6-7 for VS then sure up close I'll have a very slight advantage over the standard pulsar carbine, but out at farther ranges I'm toast.

You pick where to put your strengths and you trade off power in one area for another. Your paying to experience more things quicker not to become more powerful altogether.

This is true alot of people say that the engi weapon and the medi weapon or over powered, but there not. They just have a higher rate of fire and reload quicker then your standard heavy weapon. This is why sometimes when your in heavy assault you can get mowed down by a medic on the quick draw. It also depends on where he hits you to. With better sights you can get that head shot, which is quick and clean. I use a reflex sight on my heavy assault standard weapon, the initial burst I try to go for the head, which in turn drops the enemy, but after the initial burst the weapon is all over the place. This is normal, if any of you guys are military or know your weapons, know that the SAW, 240Bravo, and the M60 have a hell of a kick and are mainly supression weapons, and this is what I assume the Heavy troop weapon is modeled after. But by purchasing things to help keep the kick down you can make the standard heavy assault weapon more accurat and leathal.

I LOVE THIS GAME :groovy:

[Mavvvy]

This is true alot of people say that the engi weapon and the medi weapon or over powered, but there not. They just have a higher rate of fire and reload quicker then your standard heavy weapon. This is why sometimes when your in heavy assault you can get mowed down by a medic on the quick draw. It also depends on where he hits you to. With better sights you can get that head shot, which is quick and clean. I use a reflex sight on my heavy assault standard weapon, the initial burst I try to go for the head, which in turn drops the enemy, but after the initial burst the weapon is all over the place. This is normal, if any of you guys are military or know your weapons, know that the SAW, 240Bravo, and the M60 have a hell of a kick and are mainly supression weapons, and this is what I assume the Heavy troop weapon is modeled after. But by purchasing things to help keep the kick down you can make the standard heavy assault weapon more accurat and leathal.

I LOVE THIS GAME :groovy:

Very true, in my opinion the heavy assault is kinda badly named, he's more of an infantry support/tank killer. But try finding a catchy name for that :D

[Qwan]

Very true, in my opinion the heavy assault is kinda badly named, he's more of an infantry support/tank killer. But try finding a catchy name for that :D

Well I have a pretty good name, well call him the Light bright, cause when he pops them shields on, he lights up like flash light in a dark room. :rofl:

[TurngleHat]

My confidence in the FTP model was only shaken when I realized how much more expensive AA weapons are than other weapons in the same slots.

I have to imagine that they know how much of a problem aircraft are right now. Dem rocket pods. :no:

[Qwan]

I think that is the unbalance and adaptive part about the game, unbalance in a sence that the air vehicle is ready availible and the anti air weapon is not, also the adaptive sence because if the enemy all of a sudden have a ton of air ie about 12 people go back to the base and get air vehicles then the ground unit will have to just adapt. They can go get there own air or get some vehicles with gun turrets on it. I mean its simple tactical science. Air isnt the problem its who ever gets it there the fastest. If a significant group is having a big ground fight and about 12 to 14 people on one side decide to go back to base and get air then the other team is at a disadvantage. They can either adapt or deploy to another spot were there isnt as much air.

[psijaka]

My confidence in the FTP model was only shaken when I realized how much more expensive AA weapons are than other weapons in the same slots.

I have to imagine that they know how much of a problem aircraft are right now. Dem rocket pods. :no:

If I recall my second MAX Burster arm was quite reasonably priced. IMO a MAX + dual Bursters is just as powerful as the Skyguard, and is a much harder target to spot from the air.

[psijaka]

they had over 2 million buyers, but couldnt keep many of them, because the game didn't met their expactations. the game is garbage. thats why it failed. people dont like to pay subscription fees for garbage :)

People don't like to pay subsription fees for anything. Going down this route would result in a small player base and PS2 would wither on the vine.

Free2Play is the ONLY viable option, and if it means that someone can, for example, get their second MAX Scattercannon a bit faster than me, then so be it; that is a small price to pay for avoiding subscriptions or true Pay2Win. Any advantage they would gain is short lived and very situational.

Are any objectors to the F2P model able to suggest a viable alternative?

[Morsong]

Interesting subject. I am glad this is an MMOFPS though since good players with worse-off weapons can still kick some ass against bad players with good weapons. MMORPGS are what freak me out since it's more stat based. Then again I can totally be talking out of my rear since that's where my mouth is.