Would you RATHER they charge for the game (one time fee)? - Page 5

Wayside · 2012-06-25, 04:46 PM

No.

I like the risk/reward proposition that the micro-transaction model presents to developers. Throw something in the game without thinking about it, without really making sure that the community will value that addition, and you risk making very little or no money on it.

On the other hand, if you release 10 features or items and ALL of them are great, you stand to gain a great deal more in terms of profit from people who choose to buy most or all of them.

Furthermore, micro-transactions grant companies unique insight into what customers truly find valuable in a game. Its one thing to lead a forum crusade in favor of or against a feature or item. Talk is cheap. It's another to actually be willing to pay for a thing. Purchase habits and trends are going to give SOE some of the most reliable feedback possible as people are put in a position to vote with their money.

Lastly, it's self regulating. There's no real danger that someone in marketing or sales at SOE is going to get carried away with prices. That's a lesson CCP had to learn the hard way not too long ago. You can only charge what the market will bare, and unlike bundling everything into a massive expansion, micro transactions allow customers to pick and choose what features they truly find valuable - BEFORE spending their money.

That went longer than I thought it would, but there it is. My 2c. :P

n2q0_matrix · 2012-06-25, 04:54 PM

The motivations change if they don't have to work for our money anymore.

FreeToPlay is very Capitalistic...which is a good thing. The Market will keep the game fresh...if it fails, it will be due to the game and not the marketing or scamming.

Quovatis · 2012-06-25, 04:55 PM

They have always gave assurances that hacking will not be a problem. If that is indeed the case, the FTP model will work fine. But if hacking is indeed an issue, then, yes, it could be a disaster.

Sabin · 2012-06-25, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by n2q0_matrix

The motivations change if they don't have to work for our money anymore.

FreeToPlay is very Capitalistic...which is a good thing. The Market will keep the game fresh...if it fails, it will be due to the game and not the marketing or scamming.

I suggest an initial fee (be it whatever, $40, $30), in addition to a free-to-play market.

Originally Posted by Quovatis

They have always gave assurances that hacking will not be a problem. If that is indeed the case, the FTP model will work fine. But if hacking is indeed an issue, then, yes, it could be a disaster.

Imagine if hackers help take control of a vital base. GMs just won't be able to work fast enough to stop this - by the time they do, the damage could already be done.

GMs are important, but to realistically believe they can stop hackers before the damage is done is ludicrous. This is a living world. So all of my hard work capturing something can be thwarted by hackers - and there will be no end of round to fix it.

Froglicker · 2012-06-25, 05:11 PM

Im not against having a small startinng fee (5-15 dollars) and starting off with an equivalant amount of SC for the account. It'd reduce spammers, griefers, and people who make multiple accounts just to keep eyes on empire troop movements

Gonefshn · 2012-06-25, 05:12 PM

I think what the game is offering deserves a box price. No subscription is still a ridiculously attractive prospect and would carry the game just as well as full on F2P IMO. Adding box price will help with slightly fewer hackers and bringing money to the game. I think at this point PS2 has so much buzz they could easily get away with a box price. Well maybe not at this point because they already promised F2P but they could have had a box price from the start and been fine IMO if not better.

Sabin · 2012-06-25, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

I think what the game is offering deserves a box price. No subscription is still a ridiculously attractive prospect and would carry the game just as well as full on F2P IMO. Adding box price will help with slightly fewer hackers and bringing money to the game. I think at this point PS2 has so much buzz they could easily get away with a box price. Well maybe not at this point because they already promised F2P but they could have had a box price from the start and been fine IMO if not better.

Yes - unfortunately I agree. There is no way to go back. I guess I'm just chasing a dream.

maddoggg · 2012-06-25, 05:17 PM

To be honest if i believed that there could be enought people buying the game and playing it i would be all for a 1 time pay only.
However since this is a sci fi game(and many people hate sci fi games for countless ilogical reasons)and it's more complex than your average COD clone shooters out there,i think it really needs the f2p model in order to survive.

Blackwolf · 2012-06-25, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Sabin

Sorry. Please disregard my previous thread. I would like to know how many people would actually RATHER pay for the game to dissuade hacking.

It's an odd thing when people RATHER give money than take something for free. But I would much rather have it that way and just put a big deterrent to hackers from the start. I believe this is the easiest, and most effective way from the get-go.

I am making this a poll because I find it interesting and relevant. Please give your side of the argument - I would like to see what you all think.

I'd rather have it cost 20$ up front, and when you purchase the game for that price, you get 20$ worth of station cash to spend.

This way, they guarantee that you will at least start with 20$ worth of potential add ons, but you aren't losing any money on buying the actual game.

True that F2P means more players, but no monthly fee will attract as many (if not more) players then absolutely free would. It's also a major deterent for people to go buy the game and then hack it for giggles. If their SOE account gets banned because the game is tied to it then they won't be playing again will they?

Hell a 5$ price tag would still add enough value to the game to prevent people repeatedly blasting accounts with hacks. And SOE would inevitably profit from it if they were dumb enough to.

Sabin · 2012-06-25, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by elfailo

I'm not voting on this poll out of spite for capitalizing the word 'rather'.

The period goes inside of the quotes.

Xyntech · 2012-06-25, 06:17 PM

Cheating is a problem in box price and subscription based games. It can certainly be worse in f2p, but if ps2 plays their cards right they will be just as well off if not better off than any pay to play game. It just means they have to be extra vigilant.

So I voted no. I want the game to be free to download and free to play so that populations stay high. Bsides, f2p tends to make more money lately, so I want ps2 to be a financial success as well. Hopefully if the game makes enough money, soe won't abandon it as much as with the first game

Stew · 2012-06-25, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Sabin

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.

Planetside 1 was 300 players

Planetside 2 is 2000 players

Hope you see the difference

If its free to play and its no pay to win in any ways the game will be really popular and we will have enough player based to fill every servers but also enough players to pay for the game

ALso our caracter will be server specific

so if their is low numbers of player in the server you choose first youll be stuck their with a low player base is thats you want really ? it happen in many MMO and it sucks

F2P is the best way to go

Redshift · 2012-06-25, 06:55 PM

If you want the game to last longer than a year you need the amount of players a f2p gets

Mechzz · 2012-06-25, 07:05 PM

Anyone who wants animations should be able to pay for this by a one-time fee.

Then I would like, by payment of a similar one-time fee, to be able to shoot those b*ggers while they're role-playing into their vehicles.
(jk)

Wolfhound · 2012-06-25, 07:10 PM

My biggest concern isn't with hackers but with griefers.

tl;dr : One time fee supported by f2p model would help stop griefing not just hackers.

What's to stop an entire outfit creating new accounts on the opposite Empire and just TK'ing until they can't TK anymore, then either hopping back on their mains, or creating new accounts?

For example even one new player, particularly at launch when people are likely to be more trusting, could create a new account, cert galaxy, pick people up and just drop them over a volcano, or crash them into a cliff.

There's no foolproof way of automatically stopping this, otherwise players could be punished for simply making mistakes. And whilst CSRs could be called in to ban these players, again, griefers would have to do a fair amount of teamkilling for them to be confirmed as griefers rather than noobs. Banning noobs for crashing isn't going to be good for business...

A one time fee for the game in addition to the f2p model would be a good way to stop this and if the fee was small it would likely be deterent enough to stop mass griefing without damaging the size of the player base.

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