Would you RATHER they charge for the game (one time fee)? - Page 4

Stew · 2012-06-25, 03:40 PM

Since we need at least 2000 players per continents and 6000 per servers ill say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !

Sabin · 2012-06-25, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by KTNApollo

One time fees can't support MMOs. /thread

I answered this in a previous response. I suggest a one-time-free. Then if you wish, purchase the in-game stuff.

Highwind · 2012-06-25, 04:05 PM

I voted no, because I think there is a genius to this modern model of F2P.

I can talk up how great planetside is until I am blue in the face, but at the end of the day over half of the people I know who are hyped about the game currently flat out would not be playing if they had to pay one up front cent. These same people love their TF2 hats and keys, their DLC for game brands they subscribe to etc etc, but you just can't sell an effectively new intellectual property to some people, they won't listen when all they ever invest in are the blockbuster hits.

By making it zero cost and effectively zero barrier to entry, you will net all of the people that were on the fence and all of the people that had little to no interest which make up the majority of the untapped potential player base. By converting the non-typical player you are growing your brand and in the end you will make your money if your game is worthy. If Nexon can do it, Planetside2 will crush.

indirect · 2012-06-25, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by RadarX

This is some very interesting feedback and we appreciate it. We have absolutely no intention of charging for the game, but concerns regarding hacking and free accounts are of course being considered.

*cough* HWID bans.

Originally Posted by KTNApollo

One time fees can't support MMOs. /thread

Guild Wars would like to disagree with you.

Sabin · 2012-06-25, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Stew

Since we need at least 2000 players per continents and 6000 per servers ill say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !

You don't think they could fill a few servers up? How was PS1 able to do it with a monthly fee? (I know they had problems later on)

How is every big game out there able to get sales without giving the game away for free?

I'm not saying the game should cost $60 -- but something as a base layer of accountability.

LightningDriver · 2012-06-25, 04:12 PM

A monthly fee did not stop hacking in Planetside. If character progression was much longer, say a year for the hardest of hardcore players to max out a character, the risk of getting that account perma-banned would at least make people think twice.

Saifoda · 2012-06-25, 04:15 PM

I voted no simply for the ftp/ftd model being more popular (i.e. more people are likely to play) more killkills for me

I know it's not bulletproof, but I'm pretty happy with what they've said regarding security.

kasiraghi · 2012-06-25, 04:20 PM

Haven't read the thread... voted no.

I will probably spend more money on the game than a 'purchase' price if I enjoy it, and if I don't enjoy it (as with any F2P) I won't have lost anything.

Sabin · 2012-06-25, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Saifoda

I voted no simply for the ftp/ftd model being more popular (i.e. more people are likely to play) more killkills for me

I know it's not bulletproof, but I'm pretty happy with what they've said regarding security.

Ok, lets say millions of people play. How does that affect you? Only certain amounts of people enter a continent, and a server. That just means there are people on other servers.

Plenty of games are able to generate players without giving it away for free. If they can't get enough players to fill up a couple servers, then they are doing something entirely wrong. Be it marketing, or game design.

Planetside isn't going to have too much competition in the "hundreds of people fighting each other" FPS genre. I've mentioned it to a few friends who enjoy FPS games, and they are already on board (not mentioning it was f2p.) Marketing and a Great Game should really be enough to generate a decent player base. Then comes the referrals and word of month, because these games are obviously more fun with friends.

In reality, the most they need are 3 servers in the US. East, Mid, West. That's enough to give people decent latency.

While I agree that Sony's current f2p model is a smarter Money-Generating plan, I do not believe it makes for better game play.

Crator · 2012-06-25, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by LightningDriver

A monthly fee did not stop hacking in Planetside. If character progression was much longer, say a year for the hardest of hardcore players to max out a character, the risk of getting that account perma-banned would at least make people think twice.

You must not have played when they offered PS1 as F2P then. It was more about people using exploits. The exploits were so bad that it basically ruined everyone's game play. And if they got banned they would just create a new account and do it again and again. Hence the reason PS1 is no longer F2P...

Rivenshield · 2012-06-25, 04:31 PM

I've always assumed I'd have to pay for the client. Fifty bucks down, then you play for free, just as with every single other FPS on the market -- though we're playing on Sony's XBAWKS HUEG servers, instead of somebody's bargain-basement server sitting in the corner of their bedroom.

I don't understand how they're going to *pay* for the physical infrastructure to run this game, much less development, if they make it completely F2P. That's pant on head retarded from a financial point of view. And yes, the hacking will be horrendous.

Crator · 2012-06-25, 04:33 PM

^^^ Please look up definition of Free-to-Play....

Sabin · 2012-06-25, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

I've always assumed I'd have to pay for the client. Fifty bucks down, then you play for free, just as with every single other FPS on the market -- though we're playing on Sony's XBAWKS HUEG servers, instead of somebody's bargain-basement server sitting in the corner of their bedroom.

I don't understand how they're going to *pay* for the physical infrastructure to run this game, much less development, if they make it completely F2P. That's pant on head retarded from a financial point of view. And yes, the hacking will be horrendous.

Valve is doing fine with f2p. They are making a CRAP LOAD of money off of their item shop. But they leave the majority of the issues to the people running their own servers. That is fine if you have a 32 person server with a couple admins.

Also, I'm sure it gets stale hacking there. In PS2, you can have people hacking to help take control of a vital zone, in a constantly alive gaming world. That has a far greater effect than TF2, when the round or map just resets.

Cosmical · 2012-06-25, 04:38 PM

Free to play annoys me. Not because it isnt a good model, its just that i feel like im being scammed. Im not a 12 year old who values the look of my characters visor while i tea bags someone. I just want content, and choices without feeling like im on a slippery slope to cosmetic addiction, pissing away my money on designer gun holsters because i can.

Champions online did an amazing thing, when it went free to play, it looked at people like me who baught the game retail, and then paid months of subscription and went "right, hes clearly spent enough, or as much as we expect anyone to spend" and gave me access to all items, clothes and powers.

I want a large lump some, so i can get it out of the way and start playing the game. 40 pounds on release, and 20 for every patch. Done.

Crator · 2012-06-25, 04:42 PM

Well, I do know SOE gives free SC every month if you have a sub. So, that's kind of like what you want, without lump sum. Plus, what if they come out with new stuff all the time.

View Poll Results: Would you RATHER they charge for the game (one time fee)?
Yes	160	43.24%
No	210	56.76%
Voters: 370. You may not vote on this poll