PS2 Business Model

**Malorn** · 2011-07-11, 05:09 AM

Little has been revealed about this, but I wanted to have a discussion about it all the same. First, starting with a few principles and lessons from the past.

* Most FPSers are used to not paying a subscription to play their games online. All of the Battlefield and COD games and just about every console and PC FPS ever has been "pay-once, play forever". Additionally, younger gamers may have parents that buy the games and they're used to buying games and not having subscriptions. The conclusion here is that having a mandatory subscription will cost PS2 players.

* PS1 got a great boost in players with the Fodder program, though the easy-to-abuse nature of this contributed to hackers and poor behavior since they could just make another player.

* WoW, World of Tanks, and others have proven that people will pay absurd amounts of money for vanity items and services. Want a sparklehorse or a vanity pet? A new skin for your tank? Redo character creation? Transfer servers? $20 each and they're yours!

* Many players and PS vets have no problem paying a subscription and prefer it over micro-transactions.

* Putting gameplay-altering options for microtransactions can have disastrous consequences and also cost PS2 players. We need only look at EVE Online and their largest subscription drop in MMO history when they got too greedy and tried to have players pay for special ammo that was better than all the other ammo, and convert their business model into a 'premium service' and other such foolish ideas. Some players have a visceral reaction to paying more money in order to compete and it likely won't go over well with the play-for-free crowd either.

From this it seems to me that the best options for PS2's business model would be the following:

1) Make it pay-once-and-play-for-free. This does a few things
* It gets SOE some of their investment for the game back immediately
* It provides a monetary barrier for creating extra characters for empire-hopping/spying, etc.
* It will go over well with traditional FPS players since this is the normal FPS business model.

2) Optional trade-in real-money for vanity items and services. List of possible services that many players will spend ridiculous amounts of money on that also do not affect gameplay one bit:
* Vanity items - various types of sunglasses, alternate uniforms, accessories, etc.
* Custom outfit logos
* Complete character re-spec
* Complete outfit re-spec (obv far more expensive)
* Character re-creation for changing appearance
* Server transfers
* Character re-names
* Double-speed learning time for certifications (for say a 2-week period)
* Double-xp gain for kills & captures

(the last two are the real money-makers from the play-for-free folks, the key is making those slightly more expensive individually than the subscription option below)

3) Provide an optional subscription service (the SOE Pass) that bundles some services & vanity items that the player would otherwise order a-la-carte.
* Gives double-speed learning time for certifications
* Double-xp gain for kills & captures
* Maybe some random vanity item awarded every couple months or something as a reward for subscribers.

I think a system like this encourages but does not mandate a subscription. Players don't have to pay anything else to play, but if they do their characters will advance faster. Additionally, vanity items and other services will further supplement revenue, as every player will likely buy something at some point in time, and some will buy lots.

This seems like the best balance for maximizing PS2 subscribers and providing players options for how much or how little they want to spend on PS2 that will be digestible to players.

Thoughts? Is this digestible to you?

CutterJohn · 2011-07-11, 05:19 AM

I started a thread on this a while back. Most seemed to think that paying for stuff while playing for free was hideous, while saying gimped fodderside(Ah, whats in a name..) accounts alongside subscriptions are fine. A fine hypocrisy, I must admit.

I personally feel that supporting the game with a purchase game plus microtransaction model would be the best way to maintain good populations. There is zero barrier to jumping in and playing anytime you feel like.

Volw · 2011-07-11, 05:21 AM

This.

DCUO is a great example of P2P subscription model failure.

The only issue with F2P I see is the amount of items available to purchase. TF2 in that aspect is great - pretty much hats and minor gear only. On the other hand we have WoT with 'premium' OP shells or APB Reloaded with OP weapons being sold for $30.

I'd also very much prefer if there was at least a box purchase required OR credit card verification. It's pretty much the only way to protect PS from waves of cheaters.

NCLynx · 2011-07-11, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

* Double-speed learning time for certifications (for say a 2-week period)
* Double-xp gain for kills & captures

(the last two are the real money-makers from the play-for-free folks, the key is making those slightly more expensive individually than the subscription option below)

3) Provide an optional subscription service (the SOE Pass) that bundles some services & vanity items that the player would otherwise order a-la-carte.
* Gives double-speed learning time for certifications
* Double-xp gain for kills & captures
* Maybe some random vanity item awarded every couple months or something as a reward for subscribers.

Pay-2-win FTL, it'll be either or.

The double xp/cert speed in the non-subscription part sounded way to much like buying gold in WoW to me.

The subscription vs play for free incentives don't weigh out at all, especially when something they've emphasized is being able to keep up with friends even while offline. They're not going to just throw a payment option into that.

Smaller sub no benefits at all + one time optional fee for strictly vanity things would be awesome, and dammit I'd probably buy all the vanity stuff too >.>

EDIT: And if they make it buy gameplay hours model, I'm screwed. I've been known to AFK once in a while, don't want to have to log off everytime I want to go make some food real quick because it'll waste my gameplay time that I paid for.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-11, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by NCLynx

Pay-2-win FTL, it'll be either or.

The double xp/cert speed in the non-subscription part sounded way to much like buying gold in WoW to me.

The subscription vs play for free incentives don't weigh out at all, especially when something they've emphasized is being able to keep up with friends even while offline. They're not going to just throw a payment option into that.

Smaller sub no benefits at all + one time optional fee for strictly vanity things would be awesome, and dammit I'd probably buy all the vanity stuff too >.>

EDIT: And if they make it buy gameplay hours model, I'm screwed. I've been known to AFK once in a while, don't want to have to log off everytime I want to go make some food real quick because it'll waste my gameplay time that I paid for.

Games already do the "pay money for faster xp gain" and it doesn't affect the game negatively at all. People are trading money for time, and for some people that is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Not everyone has time, and not everyone has the money to throw at it, but it isn't required. It's a convenience. Convenience and vanity items are OK to charge for.

Gameplay altering advantages like buying special ammo or weapons would go under the "bad idea" category - I'm explicitly not talking about that and clearly stated so.

The problem with a fodderside-like system is that once people reach the 'cap' they tend to quit. That is just a trial-system, not a true free-to-play solution.

dachlatte · 2011-07-11, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Games already do the "pay money for faster xp gain" and it doesn't affect the game negatively at all. People are trading money for time, and for some people that is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Not everyone has time, and not everyone has the money to throw at it, but it isn't required. It's a convenience. Convenience and vanity items are OK to charge for.

Gameplay altering advantages like buying special ammo or weapons would go under the "bad idea" category - I'm explicitly not talking about that and clearly stated so.

The problem with a fodderside-like system is that once people reach the 'cap' they tend to quit. That is just a trial-system, not a true free-to-play solution.

this

NCLynx · 2011-07-11, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Not everyone has time, and not everyone has the money to throw at it, but it isn't required. It's a convenience.

Offline training was put in for a reason.

After all the emphasis on player skills > all else I still can't see them implementing anything purchasable things that enhance anything other than aesthetics.

2x XP gain/cert time decrease, however minor or major that may be (can't exactly tell yet can we) it's still way more than an aesthetic change.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-11, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by NCLynx

2x XP gain/cert time decrease, however minor or major that may be (can't exactly tell yet can we) it's still way more than an aesthetic change.

Its not cosmetic - it's convenience.

If it's easier to swallow you could look at the subscription-payers as gaining "normal time" while free-to-play gain "half time". So you can play for free but it will be less convenient to do so. And that will be perfectly fine for the people who absolutely don't want to pay any more for the game. They can always pay for other stuff later or change their minds.

Taking longer to level doesn't affect the game. People will learn at different rates no matter what you do. People will start the game later than others. People will play online more (training is faster online).

The "2x" was just something I threw out there because I've seen other games do that. It's big enough to warrant putting out some cash if a player wants to speed up their progress, but ultimately doesn't affect your character's power at all. He will eventually get to the same destination - it'll just take longer. That isn't a power change.

The beauty of planetside was that you could go play with your friends at BR1 straight away and I don't see that changing. You don't need to do heavy certing to "keep up" with your friends. Nothing is holding you back from them.

CutterJohn · 2011-07-11, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by NCLynx

Pay-2-win

Never understood this philosophy. Sure you have to pay to be 100%. So? If it were a subscription model, you couldn't play at all without paying.

Subscription

Pay = Play
No pay = No play

Microtransaction

Pay = Play at 100% capability
No pay = Play at 75% or whatever capability.

I can understand disliking a particular implementation of microtransaction if the devs were massively overcharging for stuff, or offered stuff thats wildly overpowered, but thats a reason to dislike those game devs, not the system. I've seen plenty of free to play games based off of microtransactions that were perfectly serviceable.

If you're playing and not paying, then how can you bitch about buying stuff to be more powerful when the alternative is you just couldn't play?

SKYeXile · 2011-07-11, 05:26 AM

Yea I agree, free to play is no longer the future or the past, its the now. SOE has done incredibility well with free realms, while like you say, its probably a good idea to charge an upfront fee. But you could give people trial accounts that cannot effect cross realming, other than tell people where forces are, whatever, that would be perhaps rather complicated though.

NCLynx · 2011-07-11, 05:55 AM

@CutterJohn

Because it enforces "Well if you REALLY wanted to be at your best you'd give us money." whereas subscription is universal.

I'm not saying subscription is the best method, but I also think a lot of people underestimate how many people out there are ok with subscriptions. I'd be willing to bet a good majority of the people who play CoD, BF, and any other free shooter also have played WoW for at least a month.

CoD and BF also don't have things that allow you to pay to rank up faster (that I know of, correct me if I'm wrong).

2coolforu · 2011-07-11, 05:56 AM

Let's have plain old monthly sub, microtransactions have never worked and F2P can't support the wide scale and constant updates we want

Monthy sub all the way, with at least some F2P aspect (e.g. constant reserves system)

NCLynx · 2011-07-11, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

Let's have plain old monthly sub, microtransactions have never worked and F2P can't support the wide scale and constant updates we want

Monthy sub all the way, with at least some F2P aspect (e.g. constant reserves system)

Someone will undoubtedly comment on how the reserves brought tons of hackers etc, but honestly this time around since they have a 3rd part security system taking care of that I wouldn't mind seeing how they handle hackers.

If they're not terrible then reserves wouldn't be terrible either.

Volw · 2011-07-11, 06:05 AM

Credit card verification when creating an account = problem solved.

(Yes, CC can be cloned etc etc - but it prevents majority of people from hacking = win.)

Also, mind with the certificate system revamp, there will be more incentives to have a 'non-reserve' account. In PS1 it was possible to use all equipment, even at BR10. With a skill tree system, it will no longer be possible.

2coolforu · 2011-07-11, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by NCLynx

Someone will undoubtedly comment on how the reserves brought tons of hackers etc, but honestly this time around since they have a 3rd part security system taking care of that I wouldn't mind seeing how they handle hackers.

If they're not terrible then reserves wouldn't be terrible either.

Reserves also brought the game back to life, with reserves I saw 2 poplocks and throughout the entire program I didn't see THAT many hackers, I mean it wasn't like one a day or anything as it would be in CoD, they were pretty few and far between.