This game Need FreePlayers in order to suceed stop to trying to limite them to much !

[Stew]

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

I actually took the time to register here just to make a comment in this thread because I think it needs to be said. The comment quoted above is simply false. You do NOT have to have a free game in order to attract a large player base. If you have a good quality game people will play it even if they have to pay. WoW is the most successful MMO in history and it requires players to pay a box price for the core game and its expansions as well as a monthly sub and has micro transactions. And despite that millions play it.

I am not going to comment on whether I like the free model vs other types like a sub based one because the devs have clearly stated the type of business model they are going to run with so no sense debating it unless we actually see real problems crop up during live. However the logic presented by the OP that the game "needs" to be free in order to attract 2k players per cont is flat out wrong and I felt it needed to be pointed out. If PS2 ends up being as good as it looks people most certainly would pay to play it.

EDIT: meant to say 2k per cont not server

Look at starwars old republic MMO numbers rigth now the game is pretty much dead but its a awesome mmo ! Even EA and bioware consider to make it F2P since the players count dramastically drop AND ITS A GREAT GAME !

Youll never ever have 2000 players per continents if this game is on the subscribtion model or pay for the BOX its simply not popular enough

WOW is totally out of it in this conversation WOW is a very old game and begin in the time where mmo begins to emerge !

no ones know it was going to be a good games but it as the WAR CRAFT names in it ... it was suficcient to be sucessfull

Just call planetside 2

Call of duty massive war 2 and you will selll millions of box

Planetside dont have the popularity of those games even if Ps1 was awesome and so good for the time it never reach the HALO , COD , Star craft , etc.. level of popularity

So never ever youll reach the 2000 players per continents with multiples continentals servers whiout the F2P model no matter HOW AWESOME the game is Its not popularized enough !

[Sephirex]

Originally Posted by Stew

Look at starwars old republic MMO numbers rigth now the game is pretty much dead but its a awesome mmo !Even EA and bioware consider to make it F2P since the players count dramastically drop AND ITS A GREAT GAME !

If SWTOR was a great game I'd still be playing it and so would the rest of the playerbase....
Terrible design decisions, linear gameplay, flaccid quests, and poor PvP implementation combined drove off the player base.
Games can be subscription based, but they need to prove they are worth the $15.

[DirtyBird]

I like your passion for the games success Stew and god help us when they do actually reveal any official details regarding subs.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

However the logic presented by the OP that the game "needs" to be free in order to attract 2k players per cont is flat out wrong and I felt it needed to be pointed out.

Actually my logic dont go in thats sens , my logic is based on the F2P model and the restriction people tend to ask for , ««Pay to win»» or «««pay to do thing»» models as always be a catastrophe in term of players based those games loose their players based so fast and only a minority play it so the game is not full of people and those MMO PVE mostly dont required 2000 players per continents !

Free to play mdel have to be fair to make people feel confortable and fell thats they are Not force to pay for anything to enjoy all the basics aspect of the game by thats i means having acess to the weapons / oufits creation / core custumisation / basic caracter custumisation etc...

All those core feature must be 100 % free so those people will get atached to the game and down the road they will start to spend money on cool stuff Like caracter camo , side grades , maybe boosters , golden pistols , pimp their ride , vehicules camo , helmet hornes and so on !

[TheSaltySeagull]

Originally Posted by Stew

Look at starwars old republic MMO numbers rigth now the game is pretty much dead but its a awesome mmo ! Even EA and bioware consider to make it F2P since the players count dramastically drop AND ITS A GREAT GAME !

Youll never ever have 2000 players per continents if this game is on the subscribtion model or pay for the BOX its simply not popular enough

WOW is totally out of it in this conversation WOW is a very old game and begin in the time where mmo begins to emerge !

no ones know it was going to be a good games but it as the WAR CRAFT names in it ... it was suficcient to be sucessfull

Just call planetside 2

Call of duty massive war 2 and you will selll millions of box

Planetside dont have the popularity of those games even if Ps1 was awesome and so good for the time it never reach the HALO , COD , Star craft , etc.. level of popularity

So never ever youll reach the 2000 players per continents with multiples continentals servers whiout the F2P model no matter HOW AWESOME the game is Its not popularized enough !

Starcraft, halo, warcraft, etc BECAME popular BECAUSE they where quality games that people thought looked cool, then played and told their friends and made them play. There is no reason why PS2 can not do the same.

Also Star wars failed not because of its monetary system but because it was a horrible game once you hit end game. The point remains if you have a product of high quality people will be willing to pay for it. Oh and WoW was not the beginning of MMO's I am sorry to break it to you. It simply made them more mainstream.

Simply put despite what you claim a sub based system would be viable if the game is solid and the dev decided to use that option. MMO's have functioned off sub based models before and maintained healthy populations and it remains the standard monetary system for most triple A MMOs to this day.

Like I said I am not saying one is better than the other just that both are certainly viable models and your logic that you would never see high pops in PS2 unless its free is simply false.

[QuantumMechanic]

Originally Posted by Stew

Ok now serious talk

Well, alrighty then pardner!

*tips hat towards the banjo player and sits down on a log facing the campfire on a summer's night*

*listens intently to Stew's tale*

[ThermalReaper]

The game is free to play. If you want to ease the grind, you can buy a booster. If you wanted to stroll around in a Zebra camo tank, you can buy camos.
"That zebra camo/desert looks prettier/blends in than my default soldier, Pay 2 win stupid game" is something I doubt anyone would be amazingly stupid to shout out.

End of story.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

Like I said I am not saying one is better than the other just that both are certainly viable models and your logic that you would never see high pops in PS2 unless its free is simply false.

You certainly dont get the point ...

planetside 2 dont have the back ground of all those games in term of popularity Before WOW war craft the rts was very very popular No matter whats the reason its a matter of fact so just the name WOld of war craft was going to be a best selling game !

Same for COD and HALO but cod and halo was not any better than many others games but their popularity have grow over a very ( empty space ) ill say back in the day the most played games was mainly wold war 2 games COD and Medal of honnor ..

When they decide to make a COD modern shooter it as nothing to do with the previous ones instead of been a shooter games and it sell millions of copy day 1 before anyones has ever play it when you buy a game and you did not played it its certainly not because the game is any good lol its because it as the hipe and the back story !


Planetside dont have all this Hipe and planetside dont have the same level of popularity its simple as thats

Making it free to play is a good decision so people will see how the game feel if it worth it or not and also we will have a decent players based to come up with

Do you realize in free to play less than 20 % actually pay a dime for the game ?

Do you also realize thats if you destroy 80 % of the players based the game will be hurt and will suffer from it ?

Free players are COntents they are human contents making the game more enjoable for those who pay

So i think you dont get the point at all iam not even talking about subscribtion in the OP (( ive just give a brief exemple of what ive seen ask here ))

The facts is The game will be free to play

In a free to play model the only way to achive a really sucessfull free to play is making free players feel they are never at disavantage over those who pay and they dont have core feature remoove to force them to pay in this way those people will get atached to the game those who never pay a dime will load the servers and play the game thats mean a decent players based for those who pay

do you get the point ?

[Dagron]

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

Simply put despite what you claim a sub based system would be viable if the game is solid and the dev decided to use that option. MMO's have functioned off sub based models before and maintained healthy populations and it remains the standard monetary system for most triple A MMOs to this day.

I don't like it but i think i agree with Stew in one thing, i fear that PS2 wouldn't be very successful if it followed the subscription model. Many of it's fans would pay for it of course, but most people don't really want to pay monthly for an FPS, even one with massive battles and a persistent world.

I think the reasons MMOs keep so many people playing them is because RPGs have more diverse things to do, which captures the attention of more types of people and keeps them entertained for longer.


However i still disagree with his views on how a F2P model should be. Cosmetics alone can't support it, as previous games with that model have showed us (of course things may be changing, but we don't have indications of that yet), and his claims that charging for some things would drive everyone away and ruin the game are wildly exaggerated (i.e. people wouldn't leave because free outfits had a somewhat low member cap).
 

[LtHolmes]

I think what he is saying, is much less would be willing to be required to pay 15 dollars a month to be able to play PS2.

I know many have mentioned they want one for a couple reasons. First to just have all the unlockable without having to pay individually for them and more importantly a lot want to see the game succeed financially and are afraid the current model wont support long term viability.

Personally I think F2P or a straight upfront cost are viable methods. I agree with going F2P model since FPS is currently a hot market right now and planetside needs to get people in the door to see just how great the game actually is without the risk associated with the upfront cost. Subscription based model is really quite hard to pull off, and some argue is a dying model. Look at how many titles build there business model around subscription only to realize that it is not sustanable and switch to a F2P post launch. It is not a desirable situation and less effective post fact.

I hope we have a community that welcomes all the people that are new or are not quite sold on the game initially! We should help to teach them and include them in our great community and show them why this game is unique and that is has so so much to offer. I say we welcome all the CoD and BF3 players with joy. I love BF3 and I am a loyal PS1 vet.. yes it is possilbe to branch out and know there are many games that are fun without excluding others or talking down to new players.

Cheers!

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by LtHolmes

I think what he is saying, is much less would be willing to be required to pay 15 dollars a month to be able to play PS2.

Use your decoder ring to tell him that PS2 has been F2P since it was just a PS1 conversion concept.

[Flaropri]

Originally Posted by Tooterfish

My only concern is that the paid incentives won't be lucrative enough, and I would imagine a lot of people willing to pay feel the same way. This game will only get better if the money rolls in.

People buy "useless crap"* all the time, so long as the game is good, and marketing isn't completely stupid, it will get money, and it should be enough to make up for initial investments and provide sustained growth (barring outside interference**). You'll get more money (and players) long-term if you don't force people to buy things, whether that is the initial purchase of the game, Outfits, weapons/xp, or anything else.

Think about this as well. All the customized skins, character model modifications, hood ornaments, rims (come on, Sunderer with rims? make it happen!) whatever will advertise themselves constantly to the players simply because there will be people who make that initial plunge and just keep playing. It'll get seen, and people will decide for themselves how cool it is, whether they want it, and whether the price is worth it.


*("Useless Crap" Includes but is not limited to skins, boosts, character transfers, etc.)

**(I think, pending whether or not SOE took out a very crappy loan in order to fund the project, I am more concerned about the overall economy going even worse in the US/EU than I am about the business model for PS2. Of course, that also relies on Marketing establishing reasonable prices for PS2 stuff.)

[Sephirex]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Stew reminds me of the squeaky wheels that got their way in PS1.

Stew reminds me of the old lady that goes into my local supermarket every day and jabbers incoherently to herself while she examines the oranges.

No one's sure how to ask her what she wants, because no one's managed an actual conversation with her without sparking an onslaught of linguistic madness.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Flaropri

People buy "useless crap"* all the time, so long as the game is good, and marketing isn't completely stupid, it will get money, and it should be enough to make up for initial investments and provide sustained growth (barring outside interference**). You'll get more money (and players) long-term if you don't force people to buy things, whether that is the initial purchase of the game, Outfits, weapons/xp, or anything else.

Think about this as well. All the customized skins, character model modifications, hood ornaments, rims (come on, Sunderer with rims? make it happen!) whatever will advertise themselves constantly to the players simply because there will be people who make that initial plunge and just keep playing. It'll get seen, and people will decide for themselves how cool it is, whether they want it, and whether the price is worth it.


*("Useless Crap" Includes but is not limited to skins, boosts, character transfers, etc.)

**(I think, pending whether or not SOE took out a very crappy loan in order to fund the project, I am more concerned about the overall economy going even worse in the US/EU than I am about the business model for PS2. Of course, that also relies on Marketing establishing reasonable prices for PS2 stuff.)

Yeah look at How ((Avatar)) clothes and goodies are popular on xboxlive even if they are useless these thing are so popular ive seen so many of my friends buying those over and over even if some of them was like 10 $ and more like the star wars skins and other stuff like it lol

they will make much more money thats way and Down the road and will make much more people happy and people whilling to stick to the game if they dont creat a frustration of feeling forced to pay for basic core features and others thing and if free players feel they dont get OWN just because others PAY more !

On the long run, not forcing people to pay will pay off

Originally Posted by Sephirex

Stew reminds me of the old lady that goes into my local supermarket every day and jabbers incoherently to herself while she examines the oranges.

No one's sure how to ask her what she wants, because no one's managed an actual conversation with her without sparking an onslaught of linguistic madness.

Stew this... stew thats... can you avoid personal atack? And try to stay on topic please,iam not the topic if you want to talk about me or about your feeling feel free to create a tread about it, but it will probably get remoove very quickly !

Please back on topic and stop been disrespectfull !

[Flaropri]

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

I actually took the time to register here just to make a comment in this thread because I think it needs to be said. The comment quoted above is simply false. You do NOT have to have a free game in order to attract a large player base. If you have a good quality game people will play it even if they have to pay. WoW is the most successful MMO in history and it requires players to pay a box price for the core game and its expansions as well as a monthly sub and has micro transactions. And despite that millions play it.

This isn't a good comparison for a number of reasons though.

1. Warcraft was better known than Planetside, and there was a much greater story hook for WoW in part because of the established stories in Warcraft 1-3. Planetside has a good following, as does Everquest, but the timing is very different, and the following is smaller.

2. WoW didn't start with millions, it grew into it, and it didn't have a problem when it started because it's smaller population could still fully experience the scripted story-based game. PS2 is a PvP sandbox. Say you have 60k concurrent players spread across 20 servers (numbers pulled out my ass, this is just hypothetical). Those continents are going to seem relatively empty. PS2 doesn't have quests and instances to enhance the gameplay experience. On the other hand WoW would keep trucking just fine, and even the PvP Arena and BGs would be "full."

3. WoW is established people are familiar with it and their friends play it, and speaking from personal experience, I know most people won't switch to another pay to play game easily, and won't play more than one at a time. You gotta get your money's worth after all. F2P is a good way to attract those players that are interested, but unwilling to make a financial investment up front. Avoiding selling power will keep those people playing, even if they never actually choose to pay, and thus provide content for everyone.

5. The economy is different now from when WoW started and initially grew into the monolith it is now.

4. I don't know if PS2 would succeed with it's ambitions or not without "FreePlayers." Obviously, with smaller player-bases, it could use fewer servers. If there's only 60k concurrent players on average to start*, you could go down to 10 servers instead of 20, leave those 10 for backup or maintenance or patch testing or something until the population grows (assuming the game and avdertising is good enough to cause said growth). But I do think that the trend for games has been to go from subscription to F2P, and that going F2P has helped save many games and reinvigorate their population. EQ, DDO, DCU, AoC, HoN, STO, PoxNora etc. have all received booms from going F2P (at least relative to their previous business model) some more than others, and there are still plenty of examples of games that mostly died out regardless. Even so, going F2P has helped with overall population numbers, and I, even if my internet connection is good enough to not care about server local that much, certainly think that having 20 full servers is better than 10.


*(Numbers as I said are not necessarily indicative of reality, could be less, could be more, I'm not privvy to PS1's average concurrent population over the last year or to the number of servers PS2 will start with.)

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Stew reminds me of the squeaky wheels that got their way in PS1.

Effective communication is effective?

I mean, I fully intend to spend ungodly amounts of money on useless crap in PS2, but I understand where he's coming from, seeing threads asking for initial payments like GW2, seeing threads asking for payments to make outfits, etc. These aren't good ideas, they split communities and discourage players. I don't think the majority of PSU forumites are behind them (indeed I think that this thread wasn't really necessary), but I can understand where the concern is coming from.