How much subscription are you willing to pay?

[Aractain]

WoW has the best game on the market (for now at least, contenders start this year).
As such lots of people maintain accounts for even minor play time that they would not for a lesser game.

PSN is not competing with WoW, they are competing with CoD and BF3.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Aractain

WoW has the best game on the market (for now at least, contenders start this year).
As such lots of people maintain accounts for even minor play time that they would not for a lesser game.

PSN is not competing with WoW, they are competing with CoD and BF3.

Well, to be honest that's not very stiff competition as both of those games are horrible. I don't see how a sci-fi shooter is competing with "realistic" shooters that are 16 vs 16.

[Wrath]

if PS:N went down the same microtransaction route as TF2 I wouldnt play it. I love tf2 have over 1000 hours played on it but even so hate that they brought that in. cool new weapons come on no problem all the guys with cash go buy.

quiet simply put people shouldnt be able to pay to be better then somebody. you talk about microtransactions like they can do no wrong but look at the mess that battlefield heroes became. the really OP weaons in the game could only ever be bought so the people with money always had an advatage and just ran about murdering everybody.

personally i'd prefer a sub format for one it detracts hackers from the game because they have to pay for it. though a mesh of the 2 might be the way they end up going a low sub fee topped up with micro transactions. if they do though I really hope they dont allow weapons or armour upgrades to be bought just cosmetic things.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Bags

WoW's five million non-chinese subscribers says otherwise.

Using WoW as an example is not exactly fair because lets face it, they are in a class all their own when it comes to making money. It would be like telling a business man, "oh well it worked for Microsoft." Yeah its extremely successful, but they captured lightning in a bottle and if it was that easy, more people would do it.

[Kirotan]

PSN is not competing with WoW, they are competing with CoD and BF3

Originally Posted by Bags

Well, to be honest that's not very stiff competition as both of those games are horrible.

Both game series have sold millions of copies. They are hardly "horrible." Granted, CoD is not for me, but I enjoy Bad Company 2 a great deal. There's a lot that PS:N could take game from games like these in terms of what makes them successful. Horrible is a strong word if, in your opinion, you merely dislike those games.

I don't see how a sci-fi shooter is competing with "realistic" shooters that are 16 vs 16.

They are not competing directly; they are competing for the money of consumers and for the same target audience. The bottom line is this: most people that PS:N would appeal to are already playing other FPS games. If PS:N is to be a success, it has to be good and have something that would make FPS gamers turn away from an established brand name that has entertained them for years.

Battlefield 3 will have 64 players(for PC). Project reality might move over to it, and they might raise the cap to 128 players. For many people, these are big enough battles. Although most of us here love PS for its massive battles, this cannot be the only feature to sell PS:N on, or it will flop. Sometimes more isn't always better. Some people actually play PS for reasons besides big battles (support, covert ops, etc.).

I can get behind a microtransaction model, as long as it's balanced. It should be largely for aesthetics and MINOR benefits(e.g. using a BC2 example, the default gun should not be like an F2000, and the guns you can buy are like an M416 or AN-94).

tl;dr I overwhelmingly support whichever payment model attracts and retains more overall players.

[duck]

Someone mentioned this, but I think it might be a good idea to have a cap at BR6 or BR10, and if you want to level higher you need to subscribe

It technically can be free to play, you can play for however long you want within the level cap, but you will be restricted to limited number of certs/weapons/vehicles

[Jamini]

Originally Posted by Wrath

quiet simply put people shouldnt be able to pay to be better then somebody. you talk about microtransactions like they can do no wrong but look at the mess that battlefield heroes became. the really OP weaons in the game could only ever be bought so the people with money always had an advatage and just ran about murdering everybody.

I believe I addressed this, several times. I'm fully against being able to simply buy an advantage. Ideally microtransactions would be used almost exclusively for cosmetic items. (Don't even try and feed me the "but nobody would buy that crap" line. People DO, and they LOVE it.)

Someone mentioned this, but I think it might be a good idea to have a cap at BR6 or BR10, and if you want to level higher you need to subscribe

It technically can be free to play, you can play for however long you want within the level cap, but you will be restricted to limited number of certs/weapons/vehicles

Fodderside was this. It worked great for boosting pops and keeping interest for a number of players who would not have stayed if they had to sub. The day it was dropped the PS population at the time was reduced by nearly a third.

How about this?

1. Free to download/install, like planetside is currently.
2. You need an account to play (so you must provide CC and personal info.) however playing up to BR6/CR2 is entirely free.
3. There is an in-game store, which allows you to buy up to BR15 CR4. It also sells cosmetic items, such as Outfit Decals, Alternative uniforms, Alternative Helmets, Minor Accessories, and alternate weapon skins. You can get points for this store from earning in-game awards, however each rank is substantially more than the last.
4. You get store points for referring a player to the game who pays at least $20 in the store, or subscribes.
5. You can subscribe monthly, for $10 a month. While subscribed you can have max Battle and Command Rank. Should your subscription lapse, any character over your current allowed BR/CR is unavailable to play.
6. You can buy a lifetime subscription. This costs ~$180. This is often packaged with other SoE lifetime subscriptions.

Players that wan to pay a sub for max BR and CR, can. Players that don't can spend their time both playing and advertising for credit with SoE. A rather expensive lifetime sub is also available for the truly hardcore players (It costs as much as a subscription for a year and a half, probably more if you discount buying more time at once.) Populations are high, and we have a higher fodder retention rate thanks to the more versatility/strength they have.

NOTE IN BIG BRIGHT COLORS
All ideas in this post are done assuming PS:N is going to have many features similar to planetside. For all I know, the game could be vanu chinchillas driving human fleshbags on our bent for world domination against terran alpacas and NC sheep. The entire thing played from a top-down perspective where each of us controls a squad in real-time tactical combat.

[Bags]

I'm pretty damn sure it's going to be 80% like the original.

[Timantium]

Originally Posted by Wrath

if PS:N went down the same microtransaction route as TF2 I wouldnt play it. I love tf2 have over 1000 hours played on it but even so hate that they brought that in. cool new weapons come on no problem all the guys with cash go buy.

quiet simply put people shouldnt be able to pay to be better then somebody. you talk about microtransactions like they can do no wrong but look at the mess that battlefield heroes became. the really OP weaons in the game could only ever be bought so the people with money always had an advatage and just ran about murdering everybody.

personally i'd prefer a sub format for one it detracts hackers from the game because they have to pay for it. though a mesh of the 2 might be the way they end up going a low sub fee topped up with micro transactions. if they do though I really hope they dont allow weapons or armour upgrades to be bought just cosmetic things.

I would only support MT for cosmetic upgrades and xp boost type items. Maybe even something like a small fee to recert (with free recerts every month or so).

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Timantium

I would only support MT for cosmetic upgrades and xp boost type items. Maybe even something like a small fee to recert (with free recerts every month or so).

Why do people always want companies to charge for things they already give away for free? Maybe they should also charge us $0.25 to pull a vehicle, $0.10 for a max, and $0.05 for Heavy Assault!

[EVILPIG]

It should be the standard SOE subscription.

[Sentrosi]

Agreed. Introducing micro-transactions into Planetside Next would move BFRs out of the #1 slot as "worst idea for Planetside ever".
I will pay up to $15/month for the next game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Timantium]

Originally Posted by Bags

Why do people always want companies to charge for things they already give away for free? Maybe they should also charge us $0.25 to pull a vehicle, $0.10 for a max, and $0.05 for Heavy Assault!

I don't WANT them to charge for anything Bags. I am simply being realistic as to how a MT model could be profitable for the company. If the game is not profitable, they will stop investing development assets to it - see PS for an example.

Say everybody gets a free complete recert every month at max rank and every 3 BR as they progress. Otherwise, it cost $2 to recert. Why would that be unfair?

They could even leave the "drop one thing every 24 hours" to let people make minute adjustments. That way people who want to drop sniper for AV on a particular day could do that. I think this is totally reasonable.

Otherwise, there are tons of MT games that charge for things like XP boost. 200 percent BR boost for 3 days or for 9 game hours could cost $10.

The outfits bring a whole new way for them to put MT into the game as well. Charge for special outfit logos and other cosmetic things in the game. Then they could perhaps even let people turn in their own designs to use for outfit logos.

This kind of thing could be really profitable for Sony, which is a good thing. Those of us hardcore players wouldn't have to spend money if we didn't want to. Tons of people love to buy this stuff, that's why there are so many F2P MT games on the market.

How is a MT game like this going to hurt any of you who are not interested in buying the cosmetic upgrades?

[Wrath]

Originally Posted by Jamini

I believe I addressed this, several times. I'm fully against being able to simply buy an advantage. Ideally microtransactions would be used almost exclusively for cosmetic items. (Don't even try and feed me the "but nobody would buy that crap" line. People DO, and they LOVE it.)

dude seriously pisses me off when I get half quoted then people try and show there epeen by ignoring the rest of the post.

I said spefically at the end of my post i'd only support some a micro transaction system in PS if it was for cosmetic items so dont try and say i'm feeding you any BS about it not working.

i'm fully awake that people stump money for that crap all the way from wierd mounts in WOW to paint for weapons in TF2. problem is every FPS i've seen that uses the microtransaction model doesnt limit it to cosmetic items they give people the abilty to either buy OP guns or gain early access to weapons and items that would normally take months to find.

[Timantium]

Originally Posted by Wrath

dude seriously pisses me off when

I bet you get really pissed when people half quote you and then say what you said in the other half of your post.

I hope MT don't include items beyond cosmetic ones.