Concerns about the F2p model

[FireWater]

Originally Posted by BoldarBlood

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

You are talking about someone robbing another person with force. PS2 is a free 2 play, without any purchase. Your analogy is a joke.

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.

And there are also players who don't pay a dime who compete and do well in the game. Most pro LoL players actually don't spend money to get champions, they earn them through play time.

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

Here is what I actually said:

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 think your selective quoting is an effective measurement of your knowledge and your ability to debate effectively.

Thanks so much for your time!

[BoldarBlood]

Originally Posted by FireWater

You are talking about someone robbing another person with force. PS2 is a free 2 play, without any purchase. Your analogy is a joke.

it was about the prinziple that every method is valid to reach the goal. you really should try to get the point before you start flaming and end up as a fool like now.

Originally Posted by FireWater

And there are also players who don't pay a dime who compete and do well in the game. Most pro LoL players actually don't spend money to get champions, they earn them through play time.

but this isnt LoL, because LoL is a complete diffrent game and its one of a handfull exceptions between tousands of f2p games with a rip-off monetization. and you can call me old-fashon but to me paying 7.50 dollar for a single weapon is a rip-off.

Originally Posted by sylphaen

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).

good luck catching an aa max in a biodome.

Originally Posted by sylphaen

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.

1vs1 fights happen often enough (even if there are houndreds of people in the area) and in these situations the people who buy better stuff have better chances to kill and survive. in the end it comes to simple mathematics. if someone does 2 dmg and you do 1, then you will most likely die first.

Originally Posted by sylphaen

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.

but you dont have to find everything super fantastic about it to like the game. cheering to beeing riped-off seems kinda awkward.

Originally Posted by sylphaen

I also think it's safe to say that all companies try to get as much money possible from you.

so what? giving up, open my pokets and say "take whatever you want, take it all, i dont care"?

Originally Posted by sylphaen

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

noone does that. but the costs and the bussiness model are questionable.

Originally Posted by sylphaen

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.

after an endless grind while fighting against better equippted instant-buy cash-warriors. sounds very enjoyable...

Originally Posted by sylphaen

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 ?

depends on if the level system is motivating and fun or not. in nearly all f2p games its not, because they are designed to frustrate the players to pay more and more. thats the diffrence. b2p titles are designed to be fun right from the start.

Originally Posted by sylphaen

In short, don't be so judgmental.

why not? this kind of business model exists since years and nearly all games are working similar. the newest patch (-50% certs and higher prices) proofed my concerns right.

[BoldarBlood]

btw. this guys sums it up:

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...in-rate.44240/

[Crator]

People pay hundreds of dollars in MMO subscription fees all the time. The only difference here is you can pick and choose what you want to pay for. More options for the consumer.

[Illtempered]

I just don't want it to be confusing. In PS1 we all paid the same subscription fee, and I payed it for almost 9 years. Do the math on that. Obviously, I'm willing to fork out plenty of cash for a game that's good enough. I like subscriptions because they're simple. We were all on the same level playing-field.

I don't want to constantly wonder, and have other players constantly wondering, if they're paying enough to be competitive. Don't nickel-and-dime us to death SOE. Make large, quality patches or expansions, with names like Alpha-Squad, and have no more than a few a year, ideally one. I'm also gonna get pissed-off when I start paying real money for weapons that turn out to suck, and can't be returned.

[FireWater]

Originally Posted by BoldarBlood

it was about the prinziple that every method is valid to reach the goal. you really should try to get the point before you start flaming and end up as a fool like now.

Your PRINCIPLE is still false, one scenario involves a person breaking the law, the other scenario is a company charging for amenities in their game....

Again your point is flawed and misguided.

but this isnt LoL, because LoL is a complete diffrent game and its one of a handfull exceptions between tousands of f2p games with a rip-off monetization. and you can call me old-fashon but to me paying 7.50 dollar for a single weapon is a rip-off.

And Planetside 2 isn't "TOUSANDS of F2P games with rip-off monetization". I don't think $7.50 is a rip off depending on what is given in return. We may have different financial situations, I don't know.

The core problem with your argument is that you are ignoring the fact that there are plenty of games that were Buy 2 Play aka Traditional Retail Model that were garbage and terrible as well (aka ET:QW, Brink). Now when we purchase games on the PC we can't sell them back or trade them in, we are stuck with them.

In every single case, in all the F2P titles you have mentioned or not mentioned, the player gets to try the game for free. If a player is educated and decides that the game's cash shop is Pay 2 Win, than that player who doesn't want to pay to win can leave with $0 given to the developer, and the only real cost is the electricity to run the computer, and the bandwidth it cost to download the game.

The bottom line is that you have a choice to monetize, or not monetize and can still play Planetside 2 if you choose to. The F2P model forces developers to be honest in their game developement, releasing new content regularly to either attract new players or attract players that have already played the game and are trying to win them back.

That is why the F2P model is dominating the PC Market so hard. A lot of gamers have lost faith in major franchises/publishers (justifiably so imho) because they don't get the entertainment for the money that they paid, or at least they don't feel like they do. Fair enough.

F2P is a way to get a player involved, where they can spend (or not spend) money at their own pace. As of right now I see no major flaws in SOEs monetization plan.

Because if SOE created a significant difference between the HAVES and HAVE NOTs, the HAVE NOTs will go else where, and the HAVES may not be enough to sustain the game population (not just money population as well).

So far I have liked what I have seen from Sony. I think its a great a decision to go F2P, and that it was something that was acknowledged early after announcement.

[PredatorFour]

Originally Posted by FireWater

I think its a great a decision to go F2P, and that it was something that was acknowledged early after announcement.

You think its going to be great when theres lots of hackers abusing the game? Will that make people wanna pay for items when they get abused ? If you dont think this will happen you are blind, theres already hacks out there and people abusing them and its still in beta.

[artifice]

I am definitely in favor of f2p as a whole, but I don't like SOE's past f2p models. Want to use all the gear you obtained? Pay $15 a month. Now Planetside 2's f2p model is improved and I give SOE credit for that. However, I have my worries. I think $7 for the highest gun is a bit too much. I think $5 would be a little more reasonable, but then I know when I buy the gun, it's always unlocked.

The biggest concern I have is with the subscription option when they could offer most of its benefits via boosters. I wouldn't have too much of a problem if they didn't have queue priority.

[Beerbeer]

Yeah, I also think $5 should be the ceiling. It's a psychological barrier value more than anything else and has the potential to entice more people to buy. Two $5 sales is better than one $7 sale.

[Crator]

Sales 101: Start prices high and lower to increase demand

[BoldarBlood]

Originally Posted by artifice

I am definitely in favor of f2p as a whole, but I don't like SOE's past f2p models. Want to use all the gear you obtained? Pay $15 a month. Now Planetside 2's f2p model is improved and I give SOE credit for that. However, I have my worries. I think $7 for the highest gun is a bit too much. I think $5 would be a little more reasonable, but then I know when I buy the gun, it's always unlocked.

The biggest concern I have is with the subscription option when they could offer most of its benefits via boosters. I wouldn't have too much of a problem if they didn't have queue priority.

its not only the 7,50 for a gun, but also the high unlock costs in the skillsystem. to make real progress you need premium, otherwise you would grind for ages. so they are nickel and dime you whereever they can. thats f2p.

[FireWater]

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

You think its going to be great when theres lots of hackers abusing the game?

Of course not I'm not sure how you could jump to that conclusion. There are cheaters is every online game out there today. It cannot be eliminated only minimized/discouraged. Counter Strike: Source was B2P and has had a ton of cheaters. Payment model is erroneous whether or not there will be cheaters in the game, or players attempting to cheat.

Will that make people wanna pay for items when they get abused ? If you dont think this will happen you are blind, theres already hacks out there and people abusing them and its still in beta.

I think natural consequences will ensue if players feel like they are getting beat by hackers all the time (and if its actually true, not just whiny players that cannot accept being outplayed). However, with that said, even games with numerous hackers were very profitable (aka Combat Arms). I think overall, most players are intelligent enough to accept that in no matter what game they play, there will always be cheaters. Its up to the admins to manage them, which in this case is SOE. SOE probably has learned from the PS1 days when game became a little stale, that the hackers came in and basically took it over. And SOE didn't learn a lesson, than a lot of us will be significantly disappointed.

Again since the game is F2P, there is no upfront purchase required to play the game. If a player downloads the game and logs in, and sees a bunch of players blatantly speed hacking, they will not likely continue playing the game, and they will be damn sure not to buy anything in the cash shop.


I honestly think you are blind to the fact that cheating can only be minimized, both from a macro perspective (i.e. patching out cheats) and a mirco perspective (i.e. player ban) SOE will have to continually fight and patch and ban players that continually break the rules. They would have to do this whether they were free 2 play, buy 2 play, or buy 2 play with subscription model.

A portion of the revenue dollars they earn via Cash Shop and Subscription will likely be spent to combat cheating. Again this is even more crucial because new players are not required to purchase anything, and leave without monetary investment.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by BoldarBlood

it was about the pr...sts since years and nearly all games are working similar. the newest patch (-50% certs and higher prices) proofed my concerns right.

I thought my post was clear enough for anyone to understand that my stance about F2P is balanced. I also have concerns but we'll see how time will prove us if F2P, and the way it will be managed by SOE, was the correct choice for PS2 or not.

Here is the core of my thought:
You have the freedom to choose to play or NOT to play. You have the freedom to start playing for free and keep playing for free if you enjoy the game or to STOP if you do not like the way things are going. If you feel somewhat confident about PS2, you can buy a weapon or a few. If you feel very confident and involved in the game, there is alpha squad and/or a sub to the game (especially to avoid waiting queues on full servers).


If you think the model is wrong, instead of being only critical, propose solutions. Personally, I have trouble seeing how they can "nickel and dime" a player if he chooses to never pay a cent. And if the game is bad for free players, they will just stop playing it. And if the game is bad for paying players (let's say.... because of a low population on servers because the game is not attractive enough for free-players or low-paying players), paying players will stop paying and playing. Such a situation would be terrible for SOE's business and they would likely have to react (by easing the experience for free/low-paying players, for example).


My issue is in the way you just criticize without trying to be constructive. The only useful thing that you mentionned is that gun prices were too high and cert progression too slow: it's a valid concern. However, does it mean you would be willing to pay for weapons if they were cheaper ? Is it something that will make you choose not to play ?

In my past, I have played at paying and free games: if I did not like playing one, I just naturally stopped playing it. I see people playing EVE and World of Warcraft and I don't. Good for them if they are satisfied from the fun they get for the money they give out! Of course, if you love RTS, Starcraft 2 is a great example of a game being cheap (per hour played): you pay once and get as many hours of fun and challenge as you like.


MMOs have always cost more than traditional games. I do not see a problem in giving options to pay less (or nothing) to play as long as it's viable for all players. You say it will not be viable and SOE will rip everyone off. I say it may be viable and we'll see how it works at release.


In the end, I am less worried about P2W than:
- hackers
- lag/netcode
- metagame/overall quality of gameplay

If PS2's design ends up being terrible game because of P2W, then so be it: player populations will adjust accordingly.

I have one question for you I am interested in:
What do you think of World of Warcraft (monthly fee+expansions) and EVE Online payment models ? Specifically, do you feel they are a rip-off ? And do you think the success of their game came from the quality of the experience sold or their payment model ?

[Mavvvy]

Have I come across something or someone who was impossible to kill in the game with entry level weapons...no.

It can be difficult certainly against say a fully upgraded mbt, but not impossible.

The great equalizer in any teamplay based game, is well teamwork itself. Something which money can't buy.

[ziegler]

Get over it. The younger generation of gamers has let the gaming world go to shit. That's just the way it is. I blame it on facebook/flash games.
People see nothing wrong with buying levels in a game, or gold in a game. They see nothing wrong with bypassing playtime, to get an upgraded weapon that most certainly gives them an advantage for weeks or months over someone who doesnt pay.

That is paying to win even if it is temporary til the other player "levels" up to get the gun. The question becomes...how long does it take the average player to level up to get that item.... 10 hours of playtime? 100? 1000? ....

SOE will look for the sweet spot of how long they can string along the freeloaders to keep the population up and how much they make the ADHD kids cough up to bypass the wait.

Thats so much better than everyone playing on the same level playing field.