paid server? - Page 2

Arovien · 2012-07-19, 02:42 PM

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 · 2012-07-19, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

^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 · 2012-07-19, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Goku

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 · 2012-07-19, 02:50 PM

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 · 2012-07-19, 02:58 PM

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 · 2012-07-20, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeklops

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 · 2012-07-20, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by exLupo

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?

Firearms · 2012-07-20, 05:37 AM

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 · 2012-07-20, 05:42 AM

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 · 2012-07-20, 06:20 AM

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 .

Originally Posted by 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....

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 · 2012-07-20, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by Maarvy

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 · 2012-07-20, 06:58 AM

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

GuyFawkes · 2012-07-20, 07:13 AM

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 · 2012-07-20, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Goku

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.