Concerns about the F2p model - Page 3

Crator · 2012-11-11, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by BoldarBlood

i blame soe and not the model. when i quit ps1 it was because soe was too lazy to fix bugs and bring in new content. months went by till they introduced a bomber and a aa vehicle and then no new content came for ages because they worked on a pay-expension. let alone the bugs... how long did it take till they did something against the backdoor bug? 6 months? they just didnt earned my subscription. but i was willing to pay.

There were many reasons for PS1 not doing as well as it should have. Many of them you listed here. But, SOE knows that they can make more money by getting people interested in the game first, then having them pay. The F2P model helps to achieve this goal.

Perhaps this day and age the root issue of a subscription model is not as bad as it was back in 2003. But I'd still wager that the F2P model helps on all fronts with the subscription model issue as long as it is implemented properly and as you say, not P2W. As someone else stated a few posts above, they need to make it fun for the non-paying players to get them hooked so they will buy some things. The more people you have try the game the more likely they will buy something. More profits.

Babyfark McGeez · 2012-11-11, 10:50 AM

I don't think the "server costs" argument is that valid, they definetely need the money to pay their employees, rents and working costs though (because technically, all planetside 2 related works are currently expenses with only the preorders as revenue in the soe budget).

That being said i'm ok with the cash shop of planetside 2, but still - naive or not - the only way to prevent this bad taste (that i'm not the only one having) is to restrict cash shops to the aforementioned "cosmetics and boosters" only (or atleast no direct "content buying").

psijaka · 2012-11-11, 11:02 AM

All they are selling is time.

As long as it doesn't take like 100 hours to earn the certs to get that gun you want, and that the gun is not obviously more powerful than the default weapons, then I'm happy enough with their F2P model. I'll probably be dipping into my pocket from time to time for new weapons (as long as I get the chance to trial them first). SOE have to make money somehow, and a subscription model will just not attract sufficient players to make the game pay. Fact.

But if they start selling obviously mnore powerful weapons, or stray into the realm of renting boosters for damage, accuracy, whatever, then I'll be showing the game a clean pair of heels; I had enough of that kind of nonsense with Battlefield Play4Free.

BoldarBlood · 2012-11-11, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Crator

There were many reasons for PS1 not doing as well as it should have. Many of them you listed here. But, SOE knows that they can make more money by getting people interested in the game first, then having them pay. The F2P model helps to achieve this goal.

i know and i was just saying that the subscription model works and if it doesnt its because the companies screwed up their game, like EA did with their stupid starwars wow clone with voice over for 300 mill.

Originally Posted by psijaka

All they are selling is time.

no. example (like several times written before): 2 player start new - both are equippted with a max suit - player A has bought a second cycler minigun, player B uses the standard max, both have equal skill and equal positions - player A wins because he bought the better stuff.

thats clearly p2w.

Dagron · 2012-11-11, 11:55 AM

And then one week later player B buys the second cycler with certs without spending one cent. Time is money.

psijaka · 2012-11-11, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Dagron

And then one week later player B buys the second cycler with certs without spending one cent. Time is money.

Correct.

FireWater · 2012-11-11, 12:28 PM

As long as the weapons that are available for purchase are

A) Available for free via in game time (aka cert points)

B) Doesn't completely dominate the other weapons in its class

Than its appropriate.

SOE has to make money. Honestly some people need to get outside of their house and recognize that.

F2P is not anti-consumer. Requiring an upfront purchase without completely knowing what you are getting is. That is one of the dumbest comments I have seen in a while.

Babyfark McGeez · 2012-11-11, 12:42 PM

Maybe they need to point out more that you cannot buy "sidegrades" directly, because that actually slipped past me, and it makes things seem drastically less "pay2win".
There are still a couple of items that don't feel completely "right" (like rocket pods or double aa max) but it doesn't mean someone can roll out with a completely decked out vehicle / aircraft / gun from the start and just steamroll stuff.

Personally i don't have a problem with this system, it could have been made better to prevent these discussions but it could have also been way worse.

BoldarBlood · 2012-11-11, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Dagron

And then one week later player B buys the second cycler with certs without spending one cent. Time is money.

...and then he gets killed by player A again, because playewr A used his certs for max upgrades.

Originally Posted by FireWater

SOE has to make money.

so if i stab a guy on the street with a knife and rob him its ok because i need to make money?

and since when is f2p the only way to make money in the industry? did i dreamed all those years where i played games without a f2p monetization?

Originally Posted by FireWater

F2P is not anti-consumer.

i cannot think about a sale-concept which is more anti-consumer than this

Dagron · 2012-11-11, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by BoldarBlood

...and then he gets killed by player A again, because playewr A used his certs for max upgrades.

... and then a guy who's been playing for 2 years before both of them even downloaded the game kills them both because he has a ton of sidegra... err, maybe something is wrong with unlocks, let's just play quake 1 because then we won't need to unlock anything and everyone is on equal grounds all the time.

Originally Posted by BoldarBlood

so if i stab a guy on the street with a knife and rob him its ok because i need to make money?

Wait, in the relationship between you and SOE are you supposed to be the victim or the robber? Because what you're asking is to enjoy the game in all the same levels as paying customers but without giving them one cent for the work and money they spent creating it... sounds to me like you are the one who stopped them on the street and asked for their money, you just didn't pull a knife.

Originally Posted by BoldarBlood

and since when is f2p the only way to make money in the industry? did i dreamed all those years where i played games without a f2p monetization?

If you want a large player base to make things fun for the people who actually pay for the game, it's a good way to do it.

Originally Posted by BoldarBlood

i cannot think about a sale-concept which is more anti-consumer than this

If i buy a couple of weapons when i start playing and then move on to actually play to get my unlocks i end up spending less than on a subscription model, maybe even less than a one-time-purchase-fee model. Seems pretty consumer friendly to me. It also seems to me that you just keep looking for reasons to complain about getting free soup instead of free lobster.

RSphil · 2012-11-11, 12:58 PM

as no weapon in game is overpowering i still dont think this is pay to win. every weapon has a down side. when they put a weapon in that is far better then the rest and has no down side, then i will call it p2w and be very upset.

Dagron · 2012-11-11, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by RSphil

as no weapon in game is overpowering i still dont think this is pay to win. every weapon has a down side. when they put a weapon in that is far better then the rest and has no down side, then i will call it p2w and be very upset.

Now there is a legitimate concern, we need to stay tuned and if that happens pressure them to get things back to a balanced and fair state. After all we don't want to lose the free players, we need them so we can have really big fights.

BoldarBlood · 2012-11-11, 01:24 PM

is it true what i heard today? that soe will reduce the cert income by 50%? sounds more and more like a ripp-off to me if it is....

Hamma · 2012-11-11, 02:27 PM

Where was this "heard"

Fear The Amish · 2012-11-11, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by BoldarBlood

thats not a sidegrade. the mixed standard max is useless in every role. it gets killed by anti-infantery max and doesnt have enough firepower for AA support. you need to buy a second gun to even out your chances and thats pay 2 win.

i blame soe and not the model. when i quit ps1 it was because soe was too lazy to fix bugs and bring in new content. months went by till they introduced a bomber and a aa vehicle and then no new content came for ages because they worked on a pay-expension. let alone the bugs... how long did it take till they did something against the backdoor bug? 6 months? they just didnt earned my subscription. but i was willing to pay.

no, but LoL showed that you can offer other stuff without giving gameplay advantages.

And completely wrong on LOL you know how it has a free char rotation? well smart players buy characters that are counters to most of the free ones and run them during that week. I know i do, i see Katarina come up i bought and run CC heavy chars during that period. So yes they sell "upgrades" because each lane has a champ that is a counter for another so if i see Fiora come up on the rotation i know to run Yorick top (that i bought) because he is a direct counter.