Concerns about the F2p model - Page 6

PredatorFour · 2012-11-12, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by FireWater

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.

Basically agreeing with me there dude after saying im wrong.

If the above happens which there is a good chance, its going to be crap for morale in wanting to play whether you pay or are new and play for free.

I really hope they slam down on cheaters. The only thing is theyre using a few methods and some of them like punkbuster have already being swept away by hackers.

FireWater · 2012-11-12, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

Basically agreeing with me there dude after saying im wrong.

If the above happens which there is a good chance, its going to be crap for morale in wanting to play whether you pay or are new and play for free.

Not really, there are cheaters in all games, no matter how much the end user pays. However, I don't believe the cheating is that rampant in PS2, and personally I haven't seen too much of it, other than someone using a lag cheat to warp around (or maybe they were just lagging). The new player experience is key to getting players to monetize.

I really hope they slam down on cheaters. The only thing is theyre using a few methods and some of them like punkbuster have already being swept away by hackers.

I hope so too, but I pray they do not use Punk Buster, I think that software isn't that effective and very intrusive.

BoldarBlood · 2012-11-12, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

i cant say that i have read a post to this topic which i agree more on.

FireWater · 2012-11-13, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

Actually gamers don't develop games, they play games. So developers have been exploring new revenue models for players to continually support them. They are a company, bitter opinions from bitter gamers don't pay the bills, revenues do. Boosts are just an ability to go through content faster. I haven't seen a weapon in this game that is so OP that it needs to get nerfed ASAP. I feel like if I lose, more often than not I was outplayed and not destroyed by something completely unfair. I would expect older generation players to not cry foul as much, it was generally found to be embarrassing behavior back in the day.

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? ....

Only if the weapon earned is significantly better in every dimension in every way. A "Pure Upgrade" if you will. Looks so far that is not the case in this game just yet.

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.

Sounds to me the hardcore players who choose not to spend a dime will still level up at a decent rate to earn the weapons. There maybe some catching up to do for these side grade weapons, but I don't see that necessarily as a bad thing.

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

There was never a level playing field in PS1, level 1's would be play against level 15's all the time. Yet somehow that is "fair" so to speak.

The bottom line is this: PS2 is going F2P, and while the model may need to be tweaked, it is certainly better than the forced subscription model of previous.

Look at EA, SW:TOR HAD to go F2P because it could not maintain subscriptions. That game was supposed to kill WoW (which BTW has a F2P model as well). Games are evolving along with a payment model that is most effective for the consumer AND the developer. MMO developers found out their games aren't worth anything without players in them to populate the world. Back when the subscription model was created, there were very few acts in town (think UO, EQ, EQ2, early WoW). Now the market is saturated with MMOs, and the subscriptions are hilariously favored towards Blizzard. Hell even CCP is struggling with EvE online and had to release a cash shop.

The subscription model is outdated in most circumstances. Companies need to turn a profit in order to keep their respective games division or even their whole company a float.

Go back to Quake if you feel that this is bullshit, honestly. Your posts make you sound like a bitter gamer with nothing else going on.

BoldarBlood · 2012-11-13, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by FireWater

Look at EA, SW:TOR HAD to go F2P because it could not maintain subscriptions.

because the game sucks. its a boring wow clone with no endgame and its based on a 8 years old concept. its not even a real mmog with the whole gameworld instanced. thats why it failed. not because of the bussiness model.

FireWater · 2012-11-13, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by BoldarBlood

because the game sucks. its a boring wow clone with no endgame and its based on a 8 years old concept. its not even a real mmog with the whole gameworld instanced. thats why it failed. not because of the bussiness model.

Well they did well in initial sales (over a million) however retention of subscribers was garbage. I believe its in part that subscription based games are dying off as the model is outdated.

This is verified by most other subscription services either going F2P or adding some sort of cash shop, or both.

I'm actually struggling to find an MMO that is

A)Pure subscription based

B)No Cash Shop

C)Currently running a large number of subscribers (lets say a million and over).

Even the biggest publishers are bowing down to F2P. Its simply a more effective model for this type of game.

BoldarBlood · 2012-11-13, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by FireWater

Well they did well in initial sales (over a million) however retention of subscribers was garbage.

they had over 2 million buyers, but couldnt keep many of them, because the game didn't met their expactations. the game is garbage. thats why it failed. people dont like to pay subscription fees for garbage

Gonefshn · 2012-11-13, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by BoldarBlood

that doesnt matter. if you can buy gameplay relevant items with real cash, then it is pay2win. thats a standing definition. even in wikipedia.

you have to play a long time till even out your disadvantage, while buyers have all the stuff instantly. they are also not "sidegrades" like the devs are saying. having a max with 2x the same weapons for example is mandatory to use it in any field of activity. so the standard model of the max is useless in compare to a bought combination like 2x antiinf weapons. andere there are lots of these cases.

But you never addressed the main thing i said in my post.
It's not pay2win if it doesn't help you win. It's pay2WIN... WIN.
I'm in the beta, you all are probably in it too. The new weapons don't give you an advantage, the starting weapons are all fine. I can kill just as easily with all the basic weapons. The things that give you power are the cert upgrades to weapons like sights etc. thats all in game though no cash.

To the MAX example. sure a double chaingun max will be more powerful than a max with 1 chaingun and 1 burster against infantry, but now if a plane sees you then you are toast. These things are all situational. If I use a "better" gun like the VX6-7 for VS then sure up close I'll have a very slight advantage over the standard pulsar carbine, but out at farther ranges I'm toast.

You pick where to put your strengths and you trade off power in one area for another. Your paying to experience more things quicker not to become more powerful altogether.

FireWater · 2012-11-14, 07:29 AM

Yeah boldar seems to ignore large portions of posts, guess that means he can't refute them

Qwan · 2012-11-14, 07:45 AM

I my self have always been against F2P model for PS2 but when they said you can also earn these weapons by just playing and paying with certs or at the time Araxium I thought ok, they just need to ensure that they balance out the amount of Certs or Araxium earned. I forsee a lot of people dumping money initially into the game, for armor, weapons and neat gadgets to add to your vehicle. I just feel that a monthly subscription would have been the way to go, which is the option I will be taking upon release of the game. As long as all weapons can be obtained threw playing the game, I dont have any issues with the current model.

Qwan · 2012-11-14, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

But you never addressed the main thing i said in my post.
It's not pay2win if it doesn't help you win. It's pay2WIN... WIN.
I'm in the beta, you all are probably in it too. The new weapons don't give you an advantage, the starting weapons are all fine. I can kill just as easily with all the basic weapons. The things that give you power are the cert upgrades to weapons like sights etc. thats all in game though no cash.

To the MAX example. sure a double chaingun max will be more powerful than a max with 1 chaingun and 1 burster against infantry, but now if a plane sees you then you are toast. These things are all situational. If I use a "better" gun like the VX6-7 for VS then sure up close I'll have a very slight advantage over the standard pulsar carbine, but out at farther ranges I'm toast.

You pick where to put your strengths and you trade off power in one area for another. Your paying to experience more things quicker not to become more powerful altogether.

This is true alot of people say that the engi weapon and the medi weapon or over powered, but there not. They just have a higher rate of fire and reload quicker then your standard heavy weapon. This is why sometimes when your in heavy assault you can get mowed down by a medic on the quick draw. It also depends on where he hits you to. With better sights you can get that head shot, which is quick and clean. I use a reflex sight on my heavy assault standard weapon, the initial burst I try to go for the head, which in turn drops the enemy, but after the initial burst the weapon is all over the place. This is normal, if any of you guys are military or know your weapons, know that the SAW, 240Bravo, and the M60 have a hell of a kick and are mainly supression weapons, and this is what I assume the Heavy troop weapon is modeled after. But by purchasing things to help keep the kick down you can make the standard heavy assault weapon more accurat and leathal.

I LOVE THIS GAME

Mavvvy · 2012-11-14, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Qwan

This is true alot of people say that the engi weapon and the medi weapon or over powered, but there not. They just have a higher rate of fire and reload quicker then your standard heavy weapon. This is why sometimes when your in heavy assault you can get mowed down by a medic on the quick draw. It also depends on where he hits you to. With better sights you can get that head shot, which is quick and clean. I use a reflex sight on my heavy assault standard weapon, the initial burst I try to go for the head, which in turn drops the enemy, but after the initial burst the weapon is all over the place. This is normal, if any of you guys are military or know your weapons, know that the SAW, 240Bravo, and the M60 have a hell of a kick and are mainly supression weapons, and this is what I assume the Heavy troop weapon is modeled after. But by purchasing things to help keep the kick down you can make the standard heavy assault weapon more accurat and leathal.

I LOVE THIS GAME

Very true, in my opinion the heavy assault is kinda badly named, he's more of an infantry support/tank killer. But try finding a catchy name for that

Qwan · 2012-11-14, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Mavvvy

Very true, in my opinion the heavy assault is kinda badly named, he's more of an infantry support/tank killer. But try finding a catchy name for that

Well I have a pretty good name, well call him the Light bright, cause when he pops them shields on, he lights up like flash light in a dark room.

TurngleHat · 2012-11-15, 06:16 AM

My confidence in the FTP model was only shaken when I realized how much more expensive AA weapons are than other weapons in the same slots.

I have to imagine that they know how much of a problem aircraft are right now. Dem rocket pods.

Qwan · 2012-11-15, 07:57 AM

I think that is the unbalance and adaptive part about the game, unbalance in a sence that the air vehicle is ready availible and the anti air weapon is not, also the adaptive sence because if the enemy all of a sudden have a ton of air ie about 12 people go back to the base and get air vehicles then the ground unit will have to just adapt. They can go get there own air or get some vehicles with gun turrets on it. I mean its simple tactical science. Air isnt the problem its who ever gets it there the fastest. If a significant group is having a big ground fight and about 12 to 14 people on one side decide to go back to base and get air then the other team is at a disadvantage. They can either adapt or deploy to another spot were there isnt as much air.