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

[Gamer]

Originally Posted by DarkChiron

Honestly, I'd rather not have to put down $60 right away, even with them giving me equivalent Station Cash. I got alot of computer upgrades to make and won't have much money sitting around for awhile.

I think I'd almost rather have a subscription where you get the equivalent in Station Cash along with a minor discount on purchases made with Station Cash. I think that would be delightful.

There is no way you pay your own bills; if you do, you're not in a very good financial situation for a reason. You're telling me you're short on money, and you'd rather pay for a game every month indefinitely than just pay once? Logic fail -_-

Slightly off-topic nerd rage:
I find the F2P model that other games use disturbing. I miss the old days of just paying $50 upfront and getting the content for free rather than the other way around. When they released something, it was a huge part of the game in some form or way. I don't want any game developer wasting time on some stupid green jacket or a pointless blue shirt for my character. That has no effect on the game. I want the developers to concentrate on new maps, new guns affecting gameplay, new storyline, new characters, or even part 2/3/4/5 of the game. You cant afford it? Fine. Just wait until it's $10 like I do. Now it's all "Dur Hur, I want a shiny rainbow over my hat and a gun with glitter on it so i can make other 10 year olds jealous!"

Think this doesn't affect PS2? Guess again. Two/Three years down the road, they will run into the same problem that TF2 has. Instead of working on the next game (TF3/PS3), the developers will milk this as far as they can. You won't be getting that brand new game and brand new experience:

SOE: OK guys, it has been three years. We can either start development on the much bigger and better PS3 for the next year, or we can take a week and make almost the same amount of money (if not more) by making a space suit pack for $20....Yeaaaa let's go with the space suit!

Anyway, I know this is in vain and the trend is going into F2P, and that it won't stop anytime soon because Sony is a business and the F2P model makes them money. Believe me, I've heard it all before. I'm just hoping that developers at least don't make the games pay2win. That's the reason that I'm willing to give games like TF2 and PS2 a chance. And Sony better not use the "you can't complain about the crappy service and hackers because you paid nothing for the game" reasoning that so many other F2P games have fallen into.

I'd rather pay a fee upfront, but if it's going to be free, I'm glad that people like DarkChiron will be paying for the game for me

[DarkChiron]

Originally Posted by Gamer

There is no way you pay your own bills; if you do, you're not in a very good financial situation for a reason. You're telling me you're short on money, and you'd rather pay for a game every month indefinitely than just pay once? Logic fail -_-

I said I'd like the option to give them a small subscription if I wanted. Not to require it. Sometimes I have alot of extra money, sometimes I don't.

I do pay my own finances, and myself and my family live comfortably. But toward the end of the year, all my extra money goes toward getting my kids presents, because their happiness means more to me than my own. If a game came out around that time (which people have hinted will be the case), I wouldn't have the $60 I would feel comfortable spending on myself.

So the tldr version: Fuck you for your knee-jerk judgements on my life and don't post to me again.

[Daffan]

Something inside me gets me to say yes;

hackers, idiots and i guess money all adds into it, however

I do realize that they like free due to the large amounts of population etc..

[Sabin]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Do you have stock in Sony? Give it a rest.

Nothing I've posted hints that I want whats best for Sony's profits. Nice ignorant, one line post that adds nothing to the conversation though.

[Gamer]

Originally Posted by DarkChiron

I said I'd like the option to give them a small subscription if I wanted. Not to require it....

So the tldr version: Fuck you for your knee-jerk judgements on my life and don't post to me again.

Nothing in your post suggested anything about an option. Subscriptions are also usually mandatory. Don't blame me for your lack of proper communication. However, I will take your request and not respond to your posts again.

[Sabin]

Originally Posted by DarkChiron

I said I'd like the option to give them a small subscription if I wanted. Not to require it. Sometimes I have alot of extra money, sometimes I don't.

I do pay my own finances, and myself and my family live comfortably. But toward the end of the year, all my extra money goes toward getting my kids presents, because their happiness means more to me than my own. If a game came out around that time (which people have hinted will be the case), I wouldn't have the $60 I would feel comfortable spending on myself.

So the tldr version: Fuck you for your knee-jerk judgements on my life and don't post to me again.

Dark, why isn't waiting a month or two after Christmas an option? J/W

[disky]

No. A free game ensures that the players will stick around longer. Any sort of paywall deters potential squadmates and opponents. I like the one-time pay idea, with payout in SC (though if it were implemented it should be no more than $5-$10), but ultimately fewer players will even try the game if they have to pay for it, and Planetside is not a very well known IP. They're banking on the model to change that.

[Sabin]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Tonite I saw rivaL a popular clan on BF3 talking up PS2 on Twitch. PS2 is going to be a success. Winning brings profits.

Ok, thats nice. Have you read anything on the thread? My point isn't whether they will be initially profitable or not. It's about how they will deal with hackers and griefers creating new account.

From everything I've read and seen, that is a losing battle. My suggestion is sort of like a firewall. Not allowing them in to begin with. What I've seen everyone else suggest is sort of like scanning you computer AFTER there's a problem.

Sure, you get rid of em eventually, but the damage has been done.

[DarkChiron]

Originally Posted by Sabin

Dark, why isn't waiting a month or two after Christmas an option? J/W

It is. I'd rather not. The thread's title asks what I'd rather have. So I asked myself:

'Would I rather get the game right away or have to wait for it?'

Seemed simple.

[Saand]

No I wold rather they don't charge for the game. The game was build with F2P in mind I would want to believe that new accounts will have restrictions in place to make sure griefing and hacking is kept to a minimum.

That being said I would love to see some kind of class specific specials at account creation where you get station cash, some unique items and no restriction for new accounts at $12 for a specific class or 60$ for all classes.

[Anderz]

No. The Free 2 Play model encourages the developer to work harder for our money, as we get to use the product before we decide to spend any money on it. It also puts greater importance on customer service and increases the longevity of the game.

Furthermore, for a game that is meant to be played with 1000s of players, the game has a better chance of surviving and reaching capacity over the coming years.

It also makes it easier to play alongside any friends who are broke, or just on the fence about the game in general. This way, they have no excuse to not give it a shot.

So all in all, I think the F2P model is perfect for this game.

(Also, hackers have more money than most gamers; how do you think they afford the subscription to the hacks?)

[Sabin]

Originally Posted by DarkChiron

It is. I'd rather not. The thread's title asks what I'd rather have. So I asked myself:

'Would I rather get the game right away or have to wait for it?'

Seemed simple.

Seems shortsighted to me, but to each their own.

Originally Posted by Anderz

No. The Free 2 Play model encourages the developer to work harder for our money, as we get to use the product before we decide to spend any money on it. It also puts greater importance on customer service and increases the longevity of the game.

Furthermore, for a game that is meant to be played with 1000s of players, the game has a better chance of surviving and reaching capacity over the coming years.

It also makes it easier to play alongside any friends who are broke, or just on the fence about the game in general. This way, they have no excuse to not give it a shot.

So all in all, I think the F2P model is perfect for this game.

(Also, hackers have more money than most gamers; how do you think they afford the subscription to the hacks?)

Valve with TF2 updated that thing for years without it being f2p. That was a raving success. When it became f2p, it focused more on making money, and less on important gameplay updates.

F2P make it have a better short-term possibility of getting 1000s of player, but I fear the long term will suffer once people get tired of running into, and having to report hackers every day.

I'm not talking about pro-hackers - they can cause problems no matter what. I'm referring to so-called "script kiddies," who will be the majority of hackers.

[Gamer]

Originally Posted by Anderz

No. The Free 2 Play model encourages the developer to work harder for our money, as we get to use the product before we decide to spend any money on it. It also puts greater importance on customer service and increases the longevity of the game.

Furthermore, for a game that is meant to be played with 1000s of players, the game has a better chance of surviving and reaching capacity over the coming years.

It also makes it easier to play alongside any friends who are broke, or just on the fence about the game in general. This way, they have no excuse to not give it a shot.

So all in all, I think the F2P model is perfect for this game.

(Also, hackers have more money than most gamers; how do you think they afford the subscription to the hacks?)

1) Since when is releasing an update with what basically amounts to skins encouraging them to "work harder"? Last I checked, it's easier to release micro-transaction items than it is to release major updates. Plus, if this were true, then why are there so many crappy f2p games out there? According to you, your model motivates them to do otherwise.

2) Hackers don't pay for subscriptions to hacks. Only the script kiddies that don't know any better do that. Don't you think a more advanced hacker (or a script kiddie with some sense) could also hack a hack to make it free? All it takes is 1 hacker and a couple of torrent packs or rapidshare links to spread it around for free.

[Dreamcast]

I would pay, no doubt about it.....But I think is best for Planetside to be F2p....I feel it would get way more players thus become more mainstream thus make more money which will benefit the community.


The only they must do to not fail are IMO......No Pay 2 win which they said they wont....and it shouldn't take me 10 years to unlock a weapon or a vehicle.


I shouldn't feel as I need a booster to unlock stuff.

[Gamer]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

At the end of the day Sony already answered this question. F2P.

At the end of the day, you didn't understand the point of this topic.

We all know Sony won't change it now or ever. If you don't like a good hypothetical topic to keep us busy while PS2 gets released, there are plenty of other threads in this forum.