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

[Sabin]

Originally Posted by Gamer

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.

Additionally. At the end of the day we can discuss what we want to discuss. I wanted to see people opinions, and defend my own opinion.

Oh, and then there's this:

Originally Posted by RadarX

This is some very interesting feedback and we appreciate it. We have absolutely no intention of charging for the game, but concerns regarding hacking and free accounts are of course being considered.

You complain about the thread, yet RadarX appreciates it. Isn't that ironic? None of your posts have added to the discussion - they have all been sarcastic and arrogant.

Obviously SOE is not going to change it, but we can all still have an opinion, eh?

[Anderz]

Originally Posted by Gamer

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.

It encourages them to work harder because, unlike a one-time purchase, they do not have your money yet. They therefore have to earn it over time, and a game like PS2 is not going to turn a profit unless it retains a sizable player base who remain invested in the game for years to come. And in order to retain that player base, it's imperative the developers keep them engaged. If there's a bug, it's crucial that they fix it. If there's a feature being demanded by the community, it's in their best financial interests to fix it.
This may be true of traditional boxed releases to an extent -- as product loyalty will ensure the players come back for the sequel -- but not to the extent it will here, where SOE's revenue stream hinges entirely on players sticking with the game long after they've installed it.

You also have to remember that F2P, in gaming years, is a relatively new model still finding its feet. Many F2P games have been crappy because many developers mistook free to play for pay to win, believing that to be the only way they could turn a profit. They were wrong, since balance is essential to the enjoyment of any competitive game. The backlash against that model, however, has been huge; a P2W game will seriously struggle to return a profit now that there are so many F2P games on the market, and gamers expectations of them are increasing to that of a boxed AAA game.

Originally Posted by Gamer

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?

Are you sure about that? Hackers certainly do pay for hacks, and if they don't, it's generally for outdated and poorly coded hacks that get picked up very quickly by even the likes of Punkbuster. Expert hackers/coders who write their own hacks are not that common, and those that do will not find much satisfaction in a game that they can't "win" by topping a leader board, nor run the risk of doing anything suspicious with an admin on every server.

Originally Posted by Sabin

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.

TF2 was not built as a F2P game, and therefore is an apples and oranges comparison to Planetside 2.

Valve updated the game until it reached the end of its typical life cycle, like any game developer does. During this time however, the F2P revolution began, and Valve saw an opportunity to make a quick buck and extend the life of the game.

So by the time TF2 went F2P, it had already run the course of its post-release support schedule, with all the major bugs being eliminated and any planned content being well and truly introduced. It's a safe bet that most of their team would have moved on to the next project.

Also, the game was not built with the F2P model in mind -- there's only a handful of weapons to unlock, and the game had already been too well balanced to introduce any micro-transactions of a game-changing variety. Thus, their micro-transactions became gimmicky and cosmetic, as that kept the game stable and created a nice new trickle of revenue (+ thousands of new steam accounts) they would otherwise not have.

[Gamer]

very well thought out responses Anderz. I'm curious though. Do you really think there's been an evolution of F2P games into true F2P (not P2W) games? I know Android/iOS is a slightly different court, but the boom there of "f2p" games has all been p2w. I seem to be seeing more and more of that every day and I'm hoping it won't be the same on the PC platform.

[Anderz]

Originally Posted by Gamer

very well thought out responses Anderz. I'm curious though. Do you really think there's been an evolution of F2P games into true F2P (not P2W) games? I know Android/iOS is a slightly different court, but the boom there of "f2p" games has all been p2w. I seem to be seeing more and more of that every day and I'm hoping it won't be the same on the PC platform.

Thanks. Yeah, I'm not going to lie; I'm still a tiny bit worried that PS2 will be P2W despite my arguments to the contrary, because as you said, P2W is hardly a thing of the past just yet. The Free-2-Play model is still trying to shed that stigma. P2W games do still pop up, but a lot of them (at least on PC) are adapted from failed/failing subscription/retail games and therefore not really the best example of the future of F2P, which will not be an afterthought but integrated from day one.

As you noted on iOS and Android, other P2W games tend to be smaller games with shorter and cheaper development cycles. Since they don't cost nearly as much to produce, they don't need to retain a player base for years to come in order to turn a profit. They're built around the idea of instant gratification, which is essentially what P2W is: purchases for gamers who want an advantage without having to put in the hours to earn it. This instant gratification model also works best on mobile platforms because people tend not to "commit" to a mobile game like they do to other games, since the game play is generally pretty shallow and they might only find the time to play on the bus to work etc. That's why mobile developers are not in it for the long haul; they want their audience to be making transactions ASAP, before they lose interest in the game, and the best way to do that is make the transactions P2W. That way the player gets an instant advantage that will satisfy them until they get bored and move on to the next game.

[DarkChiron]

Originally Posted by Sabin

Seems shortsighted to me, but to each their own.

I don't agree with you about hackers. Trolls, maybe, but hackers not really.

Overall a F2P nets the company using it more overall revenue if their game is good. I want this game to succeed, so a model that gets them more money for future development is good for me.

I'm not going to discuss the topic beyond this. Seems rather silly overall to be worried about.

[Gamer]

Originally Posted by Anderz

Thanks. Yeah, I'm not going to lie; I'm still a tiny bit worried that PS2 will be P2W despite my arguments to the contrary, because as you said, P2W is hardly a thing of the past just yet. The Free-2-Play model is still trying to shed that stigma. P2W games do still pop up, but a lot of them (at least on PC) are adapted from failed/failing subscription/retail games and therefore not really the best example of the future of F2P, which will not be an afterthought but integrated from day one.

As you noted on iOS and Android, other P2W games tend to be smaller games with shorter and cheaper development cycles. Since they don't cost nearly as much to produce, they don't need to retain a player base for years to come in order to turn a profit. They're built around the idea of instant gratification, which is essentially what P2W is: purchases for gamers who want an advantage without having to put in the hours to earn it. This instant gratification model also works best on mobile platforms because people tend not to "commit" to a mobile game like they do to other games, since the game play is generally pretty shallow and they might only find the time to play on the bus to work etc. That's why mobile developers are not in it for the long haul; they want their audience to be making transactions ASAP, before they lose interest in the game, and the best way to do that is make the transactions P2W. That way the player gets an instant advantage that will satisfy them until they get bored and move on to the next game.

Ah yes, I forget to take into account the other types of gaming (social/casual) and their players' different mindsets.

I think we can all agree that PS2 is taking a step in the right direction though. Let's just hope they stay true to their word on hacking, sidegrades, and customer service in general.

[Sabin]

Originally Posted by Anderz

TF2 was not built as a F2P game, and therefore is an apples and oranges comparison to Planetside 2.

Valve updated the game until it reached the end of its typical life cycle, like any game developer does. During this time however, the F2P revolution began, and Valve saw an opportunity to make a quick buck and extend the life of the game.

So by the time TF2 went F2P, it had already run the course of its post-release support schedule, with all the major bugs being eliminated and any planned content being well and truly introduced. It's a safe bet that most of their team would have moved on to the next project.

Also, the game was not built with the F2P model in mind -- there's only a handful of weapons to unlock, and the game had already been too well balanced to introduce any micro-transactions of a game-changing variety. Thus, their micro-transactions became gimmicky and cosmetic, as that kept the game stable and created a nice new trickle of revenue (+ thousands of new steam accounts) they would otherwise not have.

True. But don't be surprised when alot of the new things coming out are aesthetic. I really don't have an issue with F2P, as long as there is an initial fee. I think it's a fine model for those not wanting to pay a subscription - that is what actually sold me on PS2. I will never pay a subscription for a game, but I absolutely do not mind the initial fee, especially when I know they are providing the servers and continual support.

My true worry is the fact that anyone will be able to continuously make new accounts. Griefers, hackers, whatever. I seriously hope I am wrong though. I have really been looking forward to this game. I have such fond memories of PS1 - running through canyons, getting shot at by snipers. Oh, what fun!

Anyway, thank you for the thoughtful response.

[SwiftRanger]

Let PS2 remain free-to-play and keep on emphasizing that.

That being said, you do need something extra (monetizing the hardcore, as long as the content doesn't split up the community and the price is fair) and a certain retail presence. A special box containing some goodies/freebies would do a lot already. Just market it very clear that these are optional/extras.

Age of Empires Online did something like this (although it was much less generous with its free content back then, gonna be better in the future) by putting a Premium Civilization pack into stores. At 20$ or so I bought it instantly because I already had loads of fun with the beta.

Don't underestimate what retail could still mean to an MMO, even a free-to-play MMO. Especially in Europe retail is still king and people aren't as eager to pay through online means.

[Toppopia]

Originally Posted by SwiftRanger

Let PS2 remain free-to-play and keep on emphasizing that.

That being said, you do need something extra (monetizing the hardcore, as long as the content doesn't split up the community and the price is fair) and a certain retail presence. A special box containing some goodies/freebies would do a lot already. Just market it very clear that these are optional/extras.

Age of Empires Online did something like this (although it was much less generous with its free content back then, gonna be better in the future) by putting a Premium Civilization pack into stores. At 20$ or so I bought it instantly because I already had loads of fun with the beta.

Don't underestimate what retail could still mean to an MMO, even a free-to-play MMO. Especially in Europe retail is still king and people aren't as eager to pay through online means.

I kind of liked Age of Empires Online, until i got to the point that i had to pay to keep on going, and i was like "Nope, screw that." And i never played it again.

And Higby has said that they will never divide the community so if any new content comes out, everyone has access to it. But one idea they could do is a premium server where only people that pay can go play there and they get content early to 'debug' it, and since they are paying people, then those people also might enjoy not having the F2P low lifes that you sometimes get. And it would help fund the game. And the community wouldn't be divided, and it would let the devs get early feedback about items in each new patch in case they are over powered or bugged and such.

[Kran De Loy]

Originally Posted by Toppopia

I kind of liked Age of Empires Online, until i got to the point that i had to pay to keep on going, and i was like "Nope, screw that." And i never played it again.

And Higby has said that they will never divide the community so if any new content comes out, everyone has access to it. But one idea they could do is a premium server where only people that pay can go play there and they get content early to 'debug' it, and since they are paying people, then those people also might enjoy not having the F2P low lifes that you sometimes get. And it would help fund the game. And the community wouldn't be divided, and it would let the devs get early feedback about items in each new patch in case they are over powered or bugged and such.

Would work when/if PS2 is hugely successful and has multiple continuously poplocked servers going.

[Admiral Blue]

A one time fee could help to keep out the dirty Brazilian peasantry that tends to infest any free game.

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by Gamer

False statement. CoD:MW is still being played by a ton of players years after release. TF2 was played by an insane amount of players for years before it became F2P. The same can be said with many other games. You just need to make a good game and the players will come.

those games require 16 players to work.....

[Mikenumbers]

I've been watching and waiting for this game a long time, I was more than willing to pay a full games price for the game before they announced it would be free-to-play so I voted yes.

I guess I'll help support the game via micro-transactions instead, looking forward to pimping out my Mosquito. :3

[Greenthy]

I wouldn't mind. But I know people that wouldn't be playing the game if it wasn't free.
(People I've introduced to League of Legends years ago and still play it without paying for anything)

And thus I enjoy the fact that I'll be able to play with these people, if they find the game fun enough.
Thus I can also understand some of the simplifications made from PS1 to PS2.

[Khorneholio]

Originally Posted by RadarX

This is some very interesting feedback and we appreciate it. We have absolutely no intention of charging for the game, but concerns regarding hacking and free accounts are of course being considered.

What I've wondered concerning this is...

Are you guys going to at least require a credit card to associate with the account? This seems totally reasonable to me. You could ban a hacker's card number, and even though they could sign up again with another... one would assume that they would run out of credit cards eventually. It would be just one more tool to help prevent a portion of hackers while being no real inconvenience to legitimate players.