Payment schemes

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Crator

^^^ Not saying that at all. Just bitter because PS1 was like that.

Indeed. Sony should have been paying us to play.

Anyone else find it funny that Chaff, whom is dropping $3k into a new rig, is squeamish about paying $15/mo for planetside?

[Chaff]

I think it's FUNNY.

Yet, it makes sense to me. Hey, I've paid it (for years), and will do so again. I can afford it. But I'm not so shallow or vain that I only see things from just MY perspective. For gamers that like to play multiple titles keeping multiple subsciptions at $15 ea seems like it'd start to be an impact on ones finances - especially a student. In which case, keeping subscriptions at $15/mo may help younger folk protect themselves from their gaming addiction tendencies.

So $15 is the norm. Big whoop. IMHO that's a tad high. Then again, if you focus on one game, it's barely more than one movie ticket. In that light, it seems like a bargain.

My main thought on lowering sub rates was to attract MORE players - NOT cuz I'm "squeemish"" about $15. I'd like to see MORE people be able to afford to keep their subs going - even if they cut back or stop playing any give MMO for dif periods of time.
.

[Bags]

I'd love a cheaper sub but is it feasible? Not sure, I don't work at these companies.

Regardless, they will have some sort of F2P option and I'm sure they realize how important having a lot of bodies is.

[NlightN]

Originally Posted by Chaff

I think it's FUNNY.

Yet, it makes sense to me. Hey, I've paid it (for years), and will do so again. I can afford it. But I'm not so shallow or vain that I only see things from just MY perspective. For gamers that like to play multiple titles keeping multiple subsciptions at $15 ea seems like it'd start to be an impact on ones finances - especially a student. In which case, keeping subscriptions at $15/mo may help younger folk protect themselves from their gaming addiction tendencies.

So $15 is the norm. Big whoop. IMHO that's a tad high. Then again, if you focus on one game, it's barely more than one movie ticket. In that light, it seems like a bargain.

My main thought on lowering sub rates was to attract MORE players - NOT cuz I'm "squeemish"" about $15. I'd like to see MORE people be able to afford to keep their subs going - even if they cut back or stop playing any give MMO for dif periods of time.
.

^^ this

It's not about what WE the dedicated crowd are willing to pay, its about attracting or more importantly sustaining a playerbase high enough to maintain battles with thousands of players.

The thing about PS2 is that as an FPS, it will also be competing against non-sub FPSs. At that premium and following the release of BFBC4 or whatever, you'll get many players saying "well why should I sub to this cow, when the milk from this cow is free, even if it is a little less dense."

[Bags]

Originally Posted by NlightN

^^ this

It's not about what WE the dedicated crowd are willing to pay, its about attracting or more importantly sustaining a playerbase high enough to maintain battles with thousands of players.

The thing about PS2 is that as an FPS, it will also be competing against non-sub FPSs. At that premium and following the release of BFBC4 or whatever, you'll get many players saying "well why should I sub to this cow, when the milk from this cow is free, even if it is a little less dense."

Well they certainly aren't doing themselves any favors by making combat a carbon copy of BF.

Regardless, you guys are completely ignoring the fact that there will be a F2P option of some sort.

So if there is a sub option it will be $15/mo.

[NlightN]

That was in response to the ppl saying it will be and should be the static $15/mo premium.

As an option to a F2P inclusive model though, its a non-issue.

[Senyu]

My conerns for the F2P model is...


-Low Funding for the game to continue and develop

-Lack of support because its F2P (Not always but generally more so)

-Unfair "Buy-to-Win" options

-No cover charge means all the riff raff can come in (trolls, douches, etc...)

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Senyu

My conerns for the F2P model is...


-Low Funding for the game to continue and develop

Look at League of Legends. F2P makes a killing if the game is near halfway decent.

[Graywolves]

Originally Posted by Bags

Look at League of Legends. F2P makes a killing if the game is near halfway decent.

I don't know much about making games but I think Planetside requires a little more money for maintenance than LoL.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Graywolves

I don't know much about making games but I think Planetside requires a little more money for maintenance than LoL.

Why so?

[Senyu]

LoL has a ridicoulous player base. They must have a huge amount of servers to keep that shit running. Sheer volume of use I think is what makes it costly. But Planetside which I don't think at first it will reach LoLs player numbers (hope it does tho) I can see PS having more complex in game things it has to calculate in addition to other things.


I have no experince but from what little I know, I imagine PS2 would work harder over the servers while LoL has just so many workers.

Anyone with actually technical knowledge mind explaining?

[Lokster]

If they make this "Free to Play" I probably won't even play it. Free to play brings hackers in masses. I realize SOE has a grand plan to deal with hackers .. but I assure you, hackers will figure out a way to hack any game and they always gravitate toward free to play games.

If it's strictly free to play, it will be full of hackers. Free to play would be fine AFTER an initial purchase of say $50-60 -- but that would force the need for micro transactions .. as somebody has to pay for the ongoing server fees/maintenance.

Just follow suit with every other MMO and make it subscription based. That's my vote, as I am completely against strictly F2P -- and not a big fan of micros.

[Aractain]

Originally Posted by Lokster

Just follow suit with every other MMO and make it subscription based.

I think you should go look at the land scape of sub only MMOs (hint: WoW and its compeitors and a few terribad ones which will go full F2P soon IMO).

Also name an action MMO that is subbased (cos I don't know of one and no Planetside 1 dosn't count, nethier does WWII online which has even less players than PS1).

[Mirror]

I dont like the free 2 play model but if it was put into PS 2 I would hope that the people on free 2 play would only be able to access a cont similar to Nexus (1 base, very small and provides no benefit at all). Players who pay a monthly sub would be able to go there and help new players etc.

If the people on the free 2 play model like it then they sub the game and get access to the rest of the BRs/CRs etc and the rest of the conts.

This would also stop most hackers as they would be stuck on the small cont that provides no benefits and if any subscription players are there when a hacker is ruining the game they can leave and go to the other fight where the hacker cant ruin it.

[Crator]

Originally Posted by Lokster

If they make this "Free to Play" I probably won't even play it. Free to play brings hackers in masses. I realize SOE has a grand plan to deal with hackers .. but I assure you, hackers will figure out a way to hack any game and they always gravitate toward free to play games.

If it's strictly free to play, it will be full of hackers. Free to play would be fine AFTER an initial purchase of say $50-60 -- but that would force the need for micro transactions .. as somebody has to pay for the ongoing server fees/maintenance.

Just follow suit with every other MMO and make it subscription based. That's my vote, as I am completely against strictly F2P -- and not a big fan of micros.

Don't BS us. If it's F2P why wouldn't you at least, try it. I know you will.
Sure, that's why BF2, BF2142, etc. are totally F2P and failed b/c they are full of hackers.