Definition of 'Selling Power' - Page 5

Graywolves · 2011-09-11, 10:53 PM

What's going to be sold for variety is going to be in rotation to be accessible in-game anyways.

Zulthus · 2011-09-11, 11:20 PM

Doesn't matter. If at any point a gun is only accessible by buying it from the shop, it is selling power.

MasterChief096 · 2011-09-11, 11:52 PM

Umm, a cash shop is not the same as a monthly subscription, you should think about that argument before making it.

With a cash-shop, I can go ape-shit crazy and purchase 30 dollars worth of upgrades if I want to, and provided I have the income to do that (nope).

With requiring a subscription, everyone is playing the game the same way, and grinding the same amount of time to achieve certain upgrades.

IMO: Cash shop sells bad ass cosmetics. Subscription ONLY provides the ability to progress to battle ranks 11-20. F2P exists in the form of reserves except it allows you to achieve up to BR10. There are no experience bonuses or extra goodies associated with a subscription, just the increased level cap. BR10 is a high enough BR to allow for enough plenty of fun with the game without paying if you don't want to, especially with the "depth" of the cert trees.

Associating the reserves and subscription model that PS used in the past with a cash shop is complete rubbish. As a subscription player, I couldn't drop 5 dollars on a gun sidegrade and be better than a free player. Sure I might have been BR25, and could drive a tank as well as go indoors for combat, but that's the ONLY power difference I had. And that power difference is hardly noticeable, even more so now that you will be able to switch seamlessly between classes each death or at a terminal.

Quite frankly I'm disgusted with some of the people on these forums. I made a thread about power differentiation and get shut down by some of you on the basis that, "customization with trade-offs isn't customization at all," and now some of those same people are spouting shit like, "its no big deal, customization will have trade-offs anyways" because Smedley said that it must be a good idea now? It wasn't a good idea when I proposed it because SOE explained their option to you?

Get a grip people.

Edit: If you aren't convinced that reserves + a subscription are enough I can personally name about 20 players that I know just on my own that played the game during reserves and purchased subscriptions because they wanted more options.

Captain1nsaneo · 2011-09-11, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Doesn't matter. If at any point a gun is only accessible by buying it from the shop, it is selling power.

Smed gave the example of a gun that would only be available through the store and another only through resources and after a period of time the two would switch. So the question becomes are you ok with them selling weapons through the store if they are only temporarily there before distribution?

Minigun · 2011-09-12, 12:31 AM

A perfect example of selling power is APB and its model, that games fun and all and player skill has a HUGE factor in the game.... until you run into people using no tactics running out in the open with 2x damage 4x reload speed 5x rate of fire and 20x normal health.... how fun is that, that model goes against anyone trying to be a better player and takes tactics right out of the game.

yes these people your trying to kill obviously suck and maybe needed a little handicap but how are they ever going to get better if they can do the same things they failed at before just because they bought godmode with a credit card. it takes away from a pleasant playerbase because all that makes people want to do is smash their head in their keyboard and runs off anyone who likes a fair competitive challenge.

don't sell power, learn from the mistakes of other games. I will PROMISE you if PS2 slips up and does this in anyway its as good as dead 6 months after release.

Graywolves · 2011-09-12, 12:38 AM

They made a big point in emphasizing "sidegrades" rather than "upgrades"

p0intman · 2011-09-12, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

Smed gave the example of a gun that would only be available through the store and another only through resources and after a period of time the two would switch. So the question becomes are you ok with them selling weapons through the store if they are only temporarily there before distribution?

If at any point a gun/weapon system/whatever else is exclusively available only through real cash, it is selling power. period. no exception.

Vancha · 2011-09-12, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by Zulthus

So that we could avoid a cash shop altogether while still funding the game. If people are just going to spend $15/mo on the cash shop anyway, why not just pay a sub instead?

Seriously?

Which do you think is more appealing to a free player? A subscription game where they can play for free with restrictions, or a F2P game where people can buy bonuses?

Those of us paying 15/mo are basically unaffected. The only difference is we get more free players playing, and thus not only more people to play with, but more people who could potentially get drawn into paying for the odd cash shop item, which is good for all of us.

Raymac · 2011-09-12, 04:30 AM

1. Planetside 2 needs a f2p option in order to keep player populations up.
2. Planetside 2 will need to bring in income. So if some players play for free, others will have to pay.
3. There will be a gap in power between those players that pay, and those that don't. That power can come in many different forms such as access to higher ranks, as has been done in Planetside 1.

It's extremely simply logic really. Whether it's done by subscription, cash shop, or some wacky hybrid, the players that pay will be in a power class above those that don't. It's just the way it is, so this crusade is silly considering there is no alternative.

The only question that remains is, what will this power gap look like, but that information is likely nowhere near complete enough to be released to the public, so until then chill. We can argue about something once we know what to argue about.

CutterJohn · 2011-09-12, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by MasterChief096

Associating the reserves and subscription model that PS used in the past with a cash shop is complete rubbish. As a subscription player, I couldn't drop 5 dollars on a gun sidegrade and be better than a free player. Sure I might have been BR25, and could drive a tank as well as go indoors for combat, but that's the ONLY power difference I had. And that power difference is hardly noticeable, even more so now that you will be able to switch seamlessly between classes each death or at a terminal.

They were limited to BR6/CR2. Soo.. You had the advantage of..

16 cert points(and I doubt reserves were eligible for the yearly perks).
EMP/OS/And iirc reveal enemies
2 implants
Berets

Hardly noticeable? Thats pretty massive.

Sirisian · 2011-09-12, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Vancha

Seriously?

Which do you think is more appealing to a free player? A subscription game where they can play for free with restrictions, or a F2P game where people can buy bonuses?

Those of us paying 15/mo are basically unaffected. The only difference is we get more free players playing, and thus not only more people to play with, but more people who could potentially get drawn into paying for the odd cash shop item, which is good for all of us.

What a loaded question.

What would a free player want? One that won't pay a subscription? I have no idea how they think other than either "I get to play without using my parent's CC" or "I can't wait to buy an advantage".

I personally don't feel like playing against F2P players with a disadvantage caused by the cash shop. I'm already fairly good at FPS games so from a competitive standpoint I don't like knowing I won/lost because of some cash shop advantage.

Vancha · 2011-09-12, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I'm already fairly good at FPS games so from a competitive standpoint I don't like knowing I won/lost because of some cash shop advantage.

How did you feel about killing Planetside reserves?

Sirisian · 2011-09-12, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

How did you feel about killing Planetside reserves?

Felt bad for them since I'd be sitting and healing/repairing and really enjoying all the aspects the game had to offer while they were seeing a small slice of it. This was especially true when I saw them foot zerging places. You have to understand that SOE is taking the game in a different direction than I wanted. I prefer where BR is simply a training period and getting the maximum BR takes around a month of play-time or less. SOE has turned it into a core gameplay mechanic along with other measures to slowly feed a reward model found in other MMO games.

From a business standpoint it makes sense, but from what I'm seeing they're sacrificing gameplay and a level playing field (you might not view it this way currently) for a system that encourages exploiting microtransactions.

So yeah my idea of a perfectly balanced system would be a subscription only system where resources are used to purchase upgrades/vehicles and other features (without unlocking them via an off-line training system) with a purely aesthetic only cash shop. The BR system would go up to BR 20 with a set number of BR points (like 2-5 for each BR) focusing on unlocking special upgrades (that can then be purchased with earned resources. Putting more points makes things cheaper) for vehicles or weapons. This would use SOE's vision of skill trees for everything. Kind of a pipe dream though judging from how many people have latched onto the idea F2P.

I will also point out that the idea of a credit card granted trial account for 7 days is not something I'm against. I just feel it shouldn't be limited in anyway. If the user wants to continue playing they can sign up for a subscription.

Aractain · 2011-09-12, 01:50 PM

The problem with your idea of a perfectly balance playing field is that no one will play it. Not enough to justify the cost.

Same reason no one has even tried another real MMOFPS in 8 damn years! I want a game to play, and I want to play with friends and that means F2P. (Not to mention that a well done F2P is no different in balance than a sub, especcialy one with a free trial).

Sirisian · 2011-09-12, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Aractain

The problem with your idea of a perfectly balance playing field is that no one will play it. Not enough to justify the cost.

Same reason no one has even tried another real MMOFPS in 8 damn years!

MMOFPS games are inherently more risky than MMORPG systems (debatable). To assume that there is even a demand for an MMOFPS is kind of speculating. Why won't people play it with what I suggested? Because it has no reward model designed into it? (Other than the resources). Or because no one would pay to play an FPS game like they would an RPG?

You do realize that in the F2P system there's going to be an incentive to purchasing things. Or are you hoping the game will just be 100% free with no catches? I mean it's a wonderful system that worked amazingly for that 8 player game called Guild Wars.

Anyway speculating why no one has released an MMOFPS in 8 years is pointless. Everyone will have their own opinions. My opinion is lack of advertisement and they just weren't interesting to some people. I've had friends play Battleground Europe and Planetside and go "I didn't find it very fun. I'm going back to CS:S". (Though SOE seems to have noticed that trend and are making the necessary changes it seems to get those people interested).

Also while I can easily afford any subscription cost I'd be willing to go to 10 USD as a subscription as would others (from other threads) to keep the corruption of an item mall out of the game.