Concerns about the F2p model

[FireWater]

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?

No of course not, extinguishing someone's life to obtain whatever is in that person's wallet or purse is different than a company trying to earn money for a product they release. The fact that you compare the two is actually quite revealing of your mindset, in which case I feel so sorry for you.

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?

Since F2P came about it made more companies switch their games to that model than P2P at least for Multiplayer titles

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

Than I feel so sorry for you F2P is the reason why games like League of Legends and other PC Titles continue to dominate the PC Market while other titles that are B2P (aka Brink) fail miserably. F2P is so powerful that current games with other models are adapting their games to it because the tradtional model doesn't work well anymore (with exceptions to CoD and other major established franchises).

I'm so grateful that you aren't in charge of SOE business decisions, what a relief!!

[BoldarBlood]

Originally Posted by FireWater

No of course not, extinguishing someone's life to obtain whatever is in that person's wallet or purse is different than a company trying to earn money for a product they release. The fact that you compare the two is actually quite revealing of your mindset, in which case I feel so sorry for you.

i feel sorry for you because you didnt got the point - profit doesnt excuses every method.

Originally Posted by FireWater

Since F2P came about it made more companies switch their games to that model than P2P at least for Multiplayer titles

sure. there are enough stupid ppl out there, who spend tons of money on pay2win games, which are in the end far more expensive than normal fullprice titles.

Originally Posted by FireWater

Than I feel so sorry for you F2P is the reason why games like League of Legends and other PC Titles continue to dominate the PC Market while other titles that are B2P (aka Brink) fail miserably.

so cod and bf3 failed? maybe ea and activision dreamed all those millions profit they made with it^^

[BoldarBlood]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Where was this "heard"

todays patch: -50% certs and more expensive costs for weapons. 9 days before the release they are getting out the big pricetags and screem "SURPRIIIISE!"

looks like i was right to have doubts about this f2p model.

[EisenKreutzer]

You get +100% Cert gain for buying a subscription, and not all weapons are more expensive. I saw a couple of weapons that went for 50 Cert points.

[BoldarBlood]

but they allready increased the prices and lowered the cert income to increase the grind and so the frustration. also 7.50 dollar for a single weapon is extremly expensive.

[Beerbeer]

I was surprised at the price changes and I agree I think it's a bit high if things go for $7.50 a pop.

I studied tf2's catalog quite a bit as I found myself spending a lot if money without really realizing it and I came to the conclusion that it was because of the relatively tiny prices per item.

Steam smartly lures people into spending more as each item is dirt cheap for the most part so it doesn't feel like you're spending a lot, when in fact you are as a whole.

So they get their money from many small purchases from many people as opposed to getting more purchases of more expensive items from a select few people.

The first supports a healthy player base, the second really doesn't as they can up and leave at any time and you would be screwed.

[EisenKreutzer]

I still don't understand how purchasing weapons for real money automatically equals pay to win. You are not winning when you get a new gun, because the gun is not objectively better than the default guns, and because you can get the same guns by just playing the game.

Could anyone explain their reasoning to me?

[BoldarBlood]

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

I still don't understand how purchasing weapons for real money automatically equals pay to win. You are not winning when you get a new gun, because the gun is not objectively better than the default guns, and because you can get the same guns by just playing the game.

Could anyone explain their reasoning to me?

sure.

example:
2 players start at the same time with the game -> both are equippting a max suit -> player A with the standard max, player B with the dual cycler, which he bought with cash -> both player have the same skill and same position -> player b wins because he bought the more effective setup with cash

[EisenKreutzer]

Originally Posted by BoldarBlood

sure.

example:
2 players start at the same time with the game -> both are equippting a max suit -> player A with the standard max, player B with the dual cycler, which he bought with cash -> both player have the same skill and same position -> player b wins because he bought the more effective setup with cash

That is a one on one situation though. Thats not really the focus of the game. This isn't Call of Duty, where one on one engagements are what decides who wins and who loses the game. In Planetside, tons of other factors influence who wins and loses. Also, say I bought a Burster for my MAX suits left hand with real money. Do I still win?

Now, apart from the MAX issue you point to, which other classes and weapons does this affect? Is it the same with two Heavy Assaults? Say HA 1 has the default weapon, and HA 2 has an LMG he payed real money for, that does more damage at medium range but less at long range.
Who wins?

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by BoldarBlood

sure.

example:
2 players start at the same time with the game -> both are equippting a max suit -> player A with the standard max, player B with the dual cycler, which he bought with cash -> both player have the same skill and same position -> player b wins because he bought the more effective setup with cash

So the free player who has an AI and an AV guns would automatically lose to a paying player who has chosen double AV or double AI ? But what about if he had double AV and faced HA players ? Or double AI and the free player had a no-upgrade no-certs tank ?

Still pay to win ?

What I see is that for a new PSU member, you sure spend a lot of effort trying to push the "OMG P2W! This game is crap, avoid it!" idea.

The truth is:
- nothing is free: what you do not spend in money, you spend in time.
- you can spend time playing this game for free
- paying players have access to THE SAME gameplay content faster
- free players ALSO have access to paying content FOR FREE. It's just slower.
- Playing for free does not mean you will not have fun or less fun than paying players.
- if you think the PS2 model is terrible, DO NOT PLAY! You'll avoid an ulcer and it's the best way to tell the devs something is wrong.

Have you tried being constructive in any single of your posts? Are you being honest in your intentions ? Instead of trying to sink PS2 before it even launches, let people play, have their fun and judge by themselves.

I do not believe I would ever say this but you are worse than a bittervet, you're just bitter.

Edit: And you sound like a SOE competitor, not a fan.

[Saintlycow]

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

I still don't understand how purchasing weapons for real money automatically equals pay to win. You are not winning when you get a new gun, because the gun is not objectively better than the default guns, and because you can get the same guns by just playing the game.

Could anyone explain their reasoning to me?

Lets Say we both play heavy assault. Lets also presume lasher is amazing now that it has been fixed. We both do the exact same things until we get 240 certs.

Now you buy the lasher with your certs. So you have a lasher
I pay for the lasher with station cash, and use the 240 certs to buy armor customization and the likes.

End result.
You have a lasher. I have a lasher, and some armor customization.

It might nos seem like much, but if the trend continues, it could get out of hand quick.

[EisenKreutzer]

Originally Posted by Saintlycow

Lets Say we both play heavy assault. Lets also presume lasher is amazing now that it has been fixed. We both do the exact same things until we get 240 certs.

Now you buy the lasher with your certs. So you have a lasher
I pay for the lasher with station cash, and use the 240 certs to buy armor customization and the likes.

End result.
You have a lasher. I have a lasher, and some armor customization.

It might nos seem like much, but if the trend continues, it could get out of hand quick.

I like this line of argument much more than others I have seen in this thread. But I'm still not convinced. Eventually, I too will get the armor upgrades if I just play and don't pay. Or I might end up certing into a better rocket launcher and be good at other things besides shooting people and surviving bullets. There are multiple roles for me to fill, and while you certainly get your weapons and upgrades faster, I will still be a contributing member of my Outfit even if I don't pay a cent.

[BoldarBlood]

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

That is a one on one situation though.

you missed the point - player b wins in an even situation because he payed. you will also have endless other kinds of situation where the diffrence of a bought advantage is making the diffrence. not the skill, but the money. thats pay 2 win.

[BoldarBlood]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

Edit: And you sound like a SOE competitor, not a fan.

a fan? a fan of soe? the guys who turned swg into a wow clone and ruined a great game, because they couldnt get enough? the guys who did a horrible job on fixing bugs and bringing new stuff to ps1? the guys who are trying to rip-off their customers with a cheezy f2p model? the guys who are letting prosiebensat1 run planetside 2 in europe, whichare even more worse than soe?

im a fan of planetside1+2. but not of this monetization and defitly not of a company which purpose it is to get as much money as possible from me. how could anyone be a fan of acompany? of products maybe, but of a company?

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by BoldarBlood

you missed the point - player b wins in an even situation because he payed. you will also have endless other kinds of situation where the diffrence of a bought advantage is making the diffrence. not the skill, but the money. thats pay 2 win.

You missed the point. If the paying player has unlocked max AA/max AI/max AV/max flamethrower/AV lockon/medic C4/inifil x12 zoom/etc..., if you catch him in a MAX with AI/AV when he has a MAX with both AA equipped on his max, he's toast (unless you can't aim).

How is that P2W ?

Don't forget it's also not you vs. all the paying players. There will be other free players and likely more free players than paying players.

Originally Posted by BoldarBlood

a fan? a fan of soe? the guys who turned swg into a wow clone and ruined a great game, because they couldnt get enough? the guys who did a horrible job on fixing bugs and bringing new stuff to ps1? the guys who are trying to rip-off their customers with a cheezy f2p model? the guys who are letting prosiebensat1 run planetside 2 in europe, whichare even more worse than soe?

im a fan of planetside1+2. but not of this monetization and defitly not of a company which purpose it is to get as much money as possible from me. how could anyone be a fan of acompany? of products maybe, but of a company?

Maybe I should have been clearer. I said "fan" in reference to Planetside Universe being a fansite for Planetside. I am not a fan of SOE but I will defend what I think is right.

I am usually part of those who take a careful stance about SOE (eg. I'm still undecided about Alpha Squad; you can also check my post history) and there are lots of things that can be criticized about SOE and the F2P model for PS2. However, I'm a fan of Planetside and SOE are still the ones who took the risk to commercialize PS1. And to develop a sequel.

I also think it's safe to say that all companies try to get as much money possible from you. I do not know if you are an employee, a self-employed person or a rentier, but don't you try to squeeze as much money from others either ? Would SOE shareholders be greedier than ActivisionBlizzard's ? Take a step back and assess your own greediness.

What I am trying to point at is that you are being unfair in a stance that asks SOE to provide services without asking for money. No one is forcing you to pay to play. You can play for free ! Now if you if you feel the game is unfair and not fun, you are free to stop playing.

I personally would have preferred a model similar to PS1 reserves where free players have access to everything but are limited in BR (i.e. in PS2 terms, it's equivalent to being limited to one class change every 6 hours) and the paying players are on subscriptions. If you decide to not spend a single penny on PS2, you can still unlock everything for free and be on the same level of a paying player.

Let's take another case: imagine PS2 was absolutely free (ie. no one can pay anything) and a new player starts playing PS2 3 years after release. Is it unfair that you are 20 BRs and acquired 40k cert points before he did ? Would that new player have no fun playing the game and progressing his character ?

I played for months as a reserve in PS1 when I had no money: I still had a ton of fun with just Adv.Engineering, Buggies, Medic and Medium Assault. In PS2, what difference does it make if you have unlocked a full class and a paying player has unlocked 3 full classes ? Jealous he has more things to choose from ? Then get a subscription or pay items you want or play more !

I hated BF2142 unlock system: I had paid 30 USD for a game with nothing unlocked ! OMG RIP-OFF!!!
Guess what ? I still enjoyed the game when long-time players had shotguns and one-shot sniper rifles. If you hate PS2 unlock system, hate DICE and their BF franchise first. Maybe if they weren't there, we'd still have the PS1 cert system.

Without having everything (and no, paying players will not have everything either; even if they did, they cannot use it all at the same time), there will still be a lot of fun for players who decide to play for free.

In short, don't be so judgmental. Until the game comes out, no one knows if the PS2 F2P model is a failure or a success. On my end, while I did have reserves concerning F2P, I am actually quite happy to be able to create a character and log on a server for free.