MeanWhile Free 2 Play are struggling, PAY 2 WIN Players are doing this with resources

[Dragonskin]

PCGAMER: How do you strike a balance in free-to-play between giving people enough to enjoy the game, and actually selling enough content to be profitable?

John Smedley: I’ll give you a good statistic: roughly 10% of the people on Planetside 2 actually spend money. It’s very interesting to watch that balance. We designed the game from the start almost completely ignoring the F2P business model – we just wanted it to be fun. And the way we see it is that the 90% of players who don’t pay are making the game fun for the 10% that do. So we look at the world in terms of how many people are playing the game, and not in terms of how many are paying. The players are content for one another, so the free players are just as important as the ones who are paying. You do have to design the game to ensure there’s enough stuff to monetise – and we’ve done that – but you also need to make sure it isn’t ‘pay to win’. And we’ve done that too; I think we’ve found the right balance.

Source: PC Gamer interview - December 14th, 2012
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/12/14/so...verquest-next/

Accurate statement by John Smedley. It's been no secret that SOE wants to make money on this game and they also haven't made PS2 a true "pay to win" free to play game.

[maradine]

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

That's new, and informative. Thanks.

Not sure where the sarcasm's coming from, considering I was agreeing with you to emphasize the point.

[kubacheski]

Originally Posted by Dragonskin

Source: PC Gamer interview - December 14th, 2012
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/12/14/so...verquest-next/

Accurate statement by John Smedley. It's been no secret that SOE wants to make money on this game and they also haven't made PS2 a true "pay to win" free to play game.

Just for clarification, what's your definition of a "true" P2W game?

Is it a freemium model where subscribers get more content than non-subs?
Or is it simply the degree of P2W in any particular game with hybrid subscription/microtransactions?

Better guns doesn't translate into "win" necessarially. But better guns for any individual is better "win" scenario to them. Think of a long sustained battle of 2 groups one all subs, one all non-subs. With the rate at which the subs can pull tanks/air/consumables vs the non-sub, who would win the seige provided they're all the same skill level of players?

It is P2W, the question is: Is the degree of P2W enough to drive off free players. That's what we're arguing in this (and too many other) threads. The scenarios keep changing also as SOE is still releasing content and peoples opinions change to reflect the new content. i.e. Would this thread have been started before the resource change and both sub and non-sub players could spam grenades like they were used to?

I think not, it took the change to get someone to start this argument anew.

[EvilNinjadude]

Originally Posted by kubacheski

Just for clarification, what's your definition of a "true" P2W game?

Is it a freemium model where subscribers get more content than non-subs?
Or is it simply the degree of P2W in any particular game with hybrid subscription/microtransactions?

Better guns doesn't translate into "win" necessarially. But better guns for any individual is better "win" scenario to them. Think of a long sustained battle of 2 groups one all subs, one all non-subs. With the rate at which the subs can pull tanks/air/consumables vs the non-sub, who would win the seige provided they're all the same skill level of players?

It is P2W, the question is: Is the degree of P2W enough to drive off free players. That's what we're arguing in this (and too many other) threads. The scenarios keep changing also as SOE is still releasing content and peoples opinions change to reflect the new content. i.e. Would this thread have been started before the resource change and both sub and non-sub players could spam grenades like they were used to?

I think not, it took the change to get someone to start this argument anew.

Aha. So your definition of Pay to Win is any business model that gives subscribers an advantage? I'm not being condescending or anything. It's just that we've apparently been talking past each other.

I see the F2P model as a sliding scale with the upper (more discriminating) models being classified as P2W, using it as a general term. However you're defining P2W as any F2P model that isn't based purely on cosmetics.
(Is access to more sidegrades to choose from a benefit? I don't even know)

[Dragonskin]

Originally Posted by kubacheski

Just for clarification, what's your definition of a "true" P2W game?

Is it a freemium model where subscribers get more content than non-subs?
Or is it simply the degree of P2W in any particular game with hybrid subscription/microtransactions?

Better guns doesn't translate into "win" necessarially. But better guns for any individual is better "win" scenario to them. Think of a long sustained battle of 2 groups one all subs, one all non-subs. With the rate at which the subs can pull tanks/air/consumables vs the non-sub, who would win the seige provided they're all the same skill level of players?

It is P2W, the question is: Is the degree of P2W enough to drive off free players. That's what we're arguing in this (and too many other) threads. The scenarios keep changing also as SOE is still releasing content and peoples opinions change to reflect the new content. i.e. Would this thread have been started before the resource change and both sub and non-sub players could spam grenades like they were used to?

I think not, it took the change to get someone to start this argument anew.

I'm sure my position on this topic is abundantly clear if you look at my previous posts in this thread as well as other Pay to Win threads I have been involved in.

Pay to Win is an easy definition, but people have been twisting it here to try to fit the phrase to fit their argument. The definition is that a paying player gets access to things that a free player cannot ever get. These items are usually extremely powerful that give a significiant advantage to the paying player. There has to be a reason to buy the items or a player wouldn't feel the need to buy them. An example is that in SWTOR you get the best gear from end game dungeons or end game PvP arenas. The only way to get that gear is to pay to access those areas of the game. So a paying player will have a significant advantage in both PvE content and PvP content that a free player could never get.

Another example is the Battlefield Free to play game. All the weapons that cost money are better than the free ones. In that game you pay just to rent your power bonus.. you can't even keep them unless you buy the much more expensive ones.

Planetside 2 doesn't do that. Everything that a paying player can get a free player can get. The ONLY exceptions are cosmetic items or convenience items like the character slots and load out slots.

All the weapons in the game are available to free to play players. If you actually spend the time comparing the weapons that you get free then you will find out that most of them are actually extremely balanced. Most of the guns in the game are in fact side grades. Even if they are true upgrades then a free player can unlock them with certs gained by playing in game. Here is the important part. Free players don't rent guns. Once they unlock a gun or ability it is theirs for that character forever. You can trail a gun for free and it will expire and be removed from your inventory, but you can premenantly unlock weapons and abilities as a free player just like all paying players.

Resources bonuses are a convenience feature. They allow paying customers to have more options and less restrictions on what vehicles and consumables they can pull. Those vehicles and consumables are still offered to all free players too. Consumables like medkits, mines and grenades are helpful.. but they don't guarantee you will kill anything. Free players are just as deadly as paying players.

Paying players do not get a significant power advantage. If paying doesn't grant you a significant power advantage over free players then it's not a pay to win game. Period.

It is of course a Pay for Convenience game. SOE wants to make money. People like convenience. People like to be able to get things faster. It doesn't make them unstoppable... they can just get the opportunity to get an item faster. There is nothing preventing a free player from killing a paying player or "Winning" over a paying player.

I know I said I wouldn't post in this thread anymore, but I am bored at work.. so I got baited back in.

[EvilNinjadude]

Originally Posted by Dragonskin

I know I said I wouldn't post in this thread anymore, but I am bored at work.. so I got baited back in.

Don't feel bad for it, I know that feel bro. I tell myself to stop caring about a discussion that doesn't directly concern me until I get involved... but almost all the time I just can't stop myself, and once I've started, I can't just leave, either.

It's good when I want to show dedication to a project. It's bad when I really shouldn't have gone there.

[kubacheski]

Originally Posted by EvilNinjadude

Don't feel bad for it, I know that feel bro. I tell myself to stop caring about a discussion that doesn't directly concern me until I get involved... but almost all the time I just can't stop myself, and once I've started, I can't just leave, either.

It's good when I want to show dedication to a project. It's bad when I really shouldn't have gone there.

I hear that.

So I get the impression we're all 3 saying pretty much the same thing, just using the labels slightly differently. I see freemium as the model that grants access to subs that non-subs can't get, which has definitive and obvious P2W attributes. And the definition of P2W is subjective (in the eye of the beholder) within the F2P games dependent and more readily obvious depending on the degree to which it is implemented.

Dragonskin, the pay for convenience is a much better definition of how I see PS2 as well.

Personally I got no problem with the financial model that SOE is using here. It's not a large difference and I can't complain, I've got very little time invested.

Another way of looking at this is that it's like coming into the game late. I mean would you say there's a bigger difference between
a BR50 subscriber and a BR50 non-sub
or between
a BR50 non-sub and BR10 subscriber?

You subscribe for the opportunity to get bigger faster, it doesn't always purchase being "better". Or how much fun it is. I have a blast and haven't spent a dime.

[Calista]

This thread confuses me. Every time I read it I think I am on the official forums

[Osskscosco]

This thread is a joke and should be moved to Whineside 2 forum.

[KesTro]

Eh, if you want to take my place and shed out the $500 into the game be my guest, otherwise I'm happy to reap the rewards. Free 2 play games have always survived on 'whales'.

[Bulltahr]

Originally Posted by KesTro

Eh, if you want to take my place and shed out the $500 into the game be my guest, otherwise I'm happy to reap the rewards. Free 2 play games have always survived on 'whales'.

Yeah man, those that put in the money provide the F2P game for the rest.
And I hope SOE is making heaps of $$ so we can keep playing this amazing game!!!

[mrmrmrj]

As someone who is a subscriber and with his Alpha bonus still active, I want to address the OP. I do run out of infantry resources from mines quite quickly when defending the obvious next base in the lattice. The pattern is usually like this:

1) mine the obvious road with 4 vehicles mines. Kill one or two initial vehicles.
2) remine the road. Kill another one or two.
3) betty one of the control points. Usually just one kill from this.
4) charge a crowded control point and drop a few betties. Usually get 2-3 kills.

So that is usually about 10-15 minutes of play resulting in 5-9 kills before I completely drain my infantry resources. The cost of this is I cannot MAX for a good hour or so. I don't think that is unbalanced. I wait for my existing mines to be "discovered" before laying new ones for the most part. I am not just spamming mines everywhere. If I did, I would run out of resources a lot faster.

I have probably spent $300 on SC but none of it helps my resource gain. I don't buy boosts because 1) they are overpriced and 2) I would hate to buy one and then have to log off for some unexpected reason.

[Badjuju]

Originally Posted by MrMak

Its like arguing with little child here.

"PAY 2 WIN"

"So he has a bigger stocckpile of mines......I can still shoot him......does not require me to particularly more skilled....just not walk into a frigin mine.....its not Pay 2 Win. Pay 4 Convenicanse at most. Besides a Free player can do pretty much the same thing by just conserving resources and stocking up on what he needs when he needs it. And its not like he can deploy all those 14 mines at the same time."


"No! He has infinite mines PAY 2 WIN! Im right ur wrong!"





Pay 2 win means a SIGNIFICANT DIRECT ADVANTAGE IN DIRECT COMBAT where players of comparable skill will almost always loose. Having more mines in your puch hardly qualifies.


Heck i have no bossts or a subscription and even I sometimes do what that guy did.

But fine repeat your mantra untill you get bored. We have to deal with one guy like that every week or so it seems.

This

[Emperor Newt]

I don't think that Infantry ressources matter all that much. For vehicles ressources on the other hand... I think they overdid it with the ressource cost increase. The difference in the amount of vehicles the members in our outfit can pull (compared to the f2p players) is quiet noticeable. But p2w? No. But it needs some more balancing /imho

Originally Posted by KesTro

Free 2 play games have always survived on 'whales'.

Relying on whales is no sustainable business model though. All those social games and some of the mmos that closed in the last past years were designed around whales. If you want to have a running service you cannot rely on them because they "die out". They are mostly recruited out of the first days playerbase.
What you need is a good conversion rate with lower spendings, not a pisspoor conversion rate with high spendings. Of course a high conversion rate with high spendings would be best, but whoever finds that formular will be richer then Scrooge McDuck. But getting a good conversion rates and by that a sustainable community means catering to the fp2 users. Just like games like LoL, Dota2 or WoT do.

[Dragonskin]

Originally Posted by Emperor Newt

I don't think that Infantry ressources matter all that much. For vehicles ressources on the other hand... I think they overdid it with the ressource cost increase. The difference in the amount of vehicles the members in our outfit can pull (compared to the f2p players) is quiet noticeable. But p2w? No. But it needs some more balancing /imho


Relying on whales is no sustainable business model though. All those social games and some of the mmos that closed in the last past years were designed around whales. If you want to have a running service you cannot rely on them because they "die out". They are mostly recruited out of the first days playerbase.
What you need is a good conversion rate with lower spendings, not a pisspoor conversion rate with high spendings. Of course a high conversion rate with high spendings would be best, but whoever finds that formular will be richer then Scrooge McDuck. But getting a good conversion rates and by that a sustainable community means catering to the fp2 users. Just like games like LoL, Dota2 or WoT do.

This is true. I don't think most Free players in Planetside 2 feel the same as the OP. I know quite a few free players that have played free since release and still play free. They might have bought some cosmetics here and there, but they don't pay for boosts or a membership.

Of course they are in outfits and outfits are pretty key for free players. Any free players reading this... find a big outfit that does combined operations and you won't have as big of an issue with personal resources. Outfits all tend ask who wants to pull air, vehicles or maxes so that free players don't feel obiligated to use resources they don't want to. More often than not it's the paying players like myself that freely pull what our outfit needs because we know we can get the resources back quickly. Vehicles tend to run in 2 person teams so that both players pool their resources to keep a vehicle out on the field. ESF and Lighting users are more on their own.. since those are 1 person vehicles.

Cosmetics seem to be a large seller in Planetside 2. The first thing my son wanted when I gave him some SC to use was camo because he sees tons of people running around looking cool. So he spent some on camo and then unlocked a few NS weapons and composite helmets because he wanted the "cool helmets that don't show the face". Since it was Independence Day weekend he had to get the NS flare gun haha. Yes.. he is one of those players that still spams his flare gun. Especially during base captures.

Most of the prices are reasonable in my opinion. If you want to see a new current Free to play game look at Marvel Heroes... they just permenantly reduced some of their characters, but most of the popular (and most powerful) characters were in the $16 - $20 range... just for 1 character that only allows 1 play style. Then look at how much customes cost.. upwards of $20 per costume... something that is just a new skin of the same character? Planetside 2 is much more reasonable. PS2 even has daily non-membership sales that are 50% off and still has tons of bundles that are 60% off.