PS2 Business Model

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

I don't think any of those are direct competitors, for the most part they're regular shooters with gameplay as different as TF2 compared with PS1.

TU comes close, but from what I've seen it won't be anywhere near the same scale and lacks vehicular combat. The rest are (I think) normal instanced shooters with game modes like deathmatch and capture the flag, nothing like Planetside.

anygame people would play over PS is competitor, perhaps not direct, but in 8 years planetside has had no direct competitor, that probably wont change anytime soon.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

off the top of my head:

firefall, warhammer 40k DMO, COD3, BF3, tribes ascend, tribes universe.

Firefall is just a simple singleplayer/co-op game. I believe it's similar to Guild Wars 1 in that there is a story. From what I researched when it came out it looks like two weeks of gameplay.

Warhammer 40k DMO is a generic MMORPG.

COD3 and BF3 are a few hours of gameplay each. (I'm imagining 10-15 hours each?) I mean I could see how they might pull players away for week, but I'm under the impression BF3's release is months before we see a PS2 release.

Tribes Ascend/Tribes Universe confuses me to no end. It's two games being developed by the same company. Don't get me wrong I'm sure Tribes Universe will do well, but it's a fast paced shooter more akin to unreal tournament fans. It lacks any cooperative gameplay due to the fast movement. (You can see this yourself by watching the trailers where players are covering the whole map is seconds). I'll probably wait to play it first though before saying it won't work as an MMO.

But yeah like I said PS2 has no real competitors. I'm not sure about you guys but I don't tend to play BF's multiplayer much. I'll pick up a new game and play the single player and get in a few matches, but then I tend to get bored. The only game recently that kept my interest at all is Crysis 2's multiplayer which felt very much like playing Planetside. Tons of strategy and you can take a lot of bullets with armor mode on. (And you can cloak and other fun stuff).

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

anygame people would play over PS is competitor, perhaps not direct, but in 8 years planetside has had no direct competitor, that probably wont change anytime soon.

If you can still have a subscription to Planetside and take a few hours off to play another game I don't view it as a competitor. When I was playing Planetside with friends I'd take breaks and play other games, but I still had my subscription going.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

anygame people would play over PS is competitor, perhaps not direct, but in 8 years planetside has had no direct competitor, that probably wont change anytime soon.

In that case every game out there is a competitor to PS. Which is true, but if you're gonna be that general there's really no sense in talking about it at all.

[BlazingSun]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

I personally hope this game won't be F2P, if it's good, I want to spend my $15 a month for continued content updates, hacker removal, etc.

That's the thing though. There was never enough development and support for the old game to actually justify subscription costs that high (OK let's be generous .. let's say after the first year).

While I don't know how a F2P variant could work, I personally won't throw my money at SOE again via a subscription just to be able to play the game that I have bought.

In the first 3 years of Planetside I have played a lot, but now that I am more of a casual player and don't have as much time anymore and feel I would be wasting money on subscriptions.

My point is, should there be a subscription again, it better be worth the money this time around.

[artifice]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

I don't think any of those are direct competitors, for the most part they're regular shooters with gameplay as different as TF2 compared with PS1.

TU comes close, but from what I've seen it won't be anywhere near the same scale and lacks vehicular combat. The rest are (I think) normal instanced shooters with game modes like deathmatch and capture the flag, nothing like Planetside.

Tribes has had vehicles since Tribes 2. Tribes Universe is no different in that respect.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Tribes Ascend/Tribes Universe confuses me to no end. It's two games being developed by the same company. Don't get me wrong I'm sure Tribes Universe will do well, but it's a fast paced shooter more akin to unreal tournament fans. It lacks any cooperative gameplay due to the fast movement. (You can see this yourself by watching the trailers where players are covering the whole map is seconds). I'll probably wait to play it first though before saying it won't work as an MMO.

Tribes Universe is a MMOFPS with a persistent world based around fighting for territorial control. I am confused why you don't think it is a competitor.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by artifice

Tribes has had vehicles since Tribes 2. Tribes Universe is no different in that respect.

But they're going to play support roles rather than deal damage, at least I'm pretty sure that's what I read in a Q&A a while back. Hence, no vehicular combat.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by artifice

Tribes Universe is a MMOFPS with a persistent world based around fighting for territorial control. I am confused why you don't think it is a competitor.

oh whoops. That trailer I watched was for Tribes Ascend. hmm. Reading up on TU it looks like you fight in instanced matches of over 100 people to take over territory on a persistent map. Or that's the impression I get reading the interview write-ups. Too early to say though since they're being really vague in their answers. It doesn't sound the same as Planetside's large battles.

[Warruz]

i refuse to play f2p games due to it feeling like youl never be as good as the person who pays.

PS needs to be a subscription

and it wont go GW style because they even said they wont be doing expansions just content updates.

What people need to realize with the subscription model is those who sub the latest actually get the most bang for their buck. As more content has been made to play then before, also by going the subscription model you dont get the nickle and dime feel associated with traditional FPS games with their $15 DLC for 3 maps or the $20 mount.

Planetside was a great but is big cult hit, it is by no means a COD in terms of sales and interest. So it needs to make it appealing to get started in. What if the game itself was free but $15 subscription, this allows more people to get into it cheaply and as long as they keep them would make more profit.

[artifice]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

oh whoops. That trailer I watched was for Tribes Ascend. hmm. Reading up on TU it looks like you fight in instanced matches of over 100 people to take over territory on a persistent map. Or that's the impression I get reading the interview write-ups. Too early to say though since they're being really vague in their answers. It doesn't sound the same as Planetside's large battles.

In TU there is one large persistent world and the game will also include structured PVP such as CTF and team DM. They had specifically said that it was a successor to PlanetSide in one of their interviews.

[Uberculosis]

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

Let's have plain old monthly sub, microtransactions have never worked and F2P can't support the wide scale and constant updates we want

As a person with 1700 hours logged into TF2 since its release in 2007, I can safely say that

1) Microtransactions for cosmetic/convenience items are a monstrous, unstoppable cash cow, and
2) F2P = Hordes and hordes of people. I'm an admin for a smaller server, which has been at capacity since the TF2 F2P update came out. Between 4p and 1a EST, not a free slot exists.

I'm all for the half-exp F2P model. If we want thousands and thousands of players duking it out over land, we have to remove as many barriers to entry as possible. PS2 needs bodies to make it work, and the body of a 35 year old guy with a career and a monthly sub is just as good as the body of a 16 year old with no money.

This works in conjunction with the proposed expansions they mentioned later. In addition to the clusterfuck of ill-conceived content from CC, it added new areas to fight in, which reduced the population density overall. Adding new areas(as mentioned in the Q&A's) means supplementing the existing population with more bodies to fill the new spaces. More bodies requires advertising, and low barriers to entry. Again, F2P fulfills this role.

It seems to me, that the hybrid F2P/Subscription system is the most ideal. Subscription for those without time, but money, F2P for those with time, but no money.

[2coolforu]

Originally Posted by Uberculosis

As a person with 1700 hours logged into TF2 since its release in 2007, I can safely say that

1) Microtransactions for cosmetic/convenience items are a monstrous, unstoppable cash cow, and
2) F2P = Hordes and hordes of people. I'm an admin for a smaller server, which has been at capacity since the TF2 F2P update came out. Between 4p and 1a EST, not a free slot exists.

I'm all for the half-exp F2P model. If we want thousands and thousands of players duking it out over land, we have to remove as many barriers to entry as possible. PS2 needs bodies to make it work, and the body of a 35 year old guy with a career and a monthly sub is just as good as the body of a 16 year old with no money.

This works in conjunction with the proposed expansions they mentioned later. In addition to the clusterfuck of ill-conceived content from CC, it added new areas to fight in, which reduced the population density overall. Adding new areas(as mentioned in the Q&A's) means supplementing the existing population with more bodies to fill the new spaces. More bodies requires advertising, and low barriers to entry. Again, F2P fulfills this role.

It seems to me, that the hybrid F2P/Subscription system is the most ideal. Subscription for those without time, but money, F2P for those with time, but no money.

Which is exactly why I said the best option was monthly subscription with a reserves style system to draw in subs, It is hard to read through all the posts but sometimes it can be important :P.

[SKYeXile]

Just had a pro idea, sell CSHD or Severside hit prediction netcode in the store for players, ill pay.

PS: I'M SERIOUS.

[Rarntogo]

To me personally whether I have to pay $15/mo. to play or play for free has little or no effect on my decision to play or not. You guys have made some interesting points on how it effects population but in reality I think it all comes down to the quality of the game. If I want to play it, the cost means little to me. Lets just say the biggest cash cow game ever is WoW. Its $15/mo. (?) and has how many players?? and has been going strong for 5,6,7 years? I personally dont see the attraction, tried it and didnt like it but it seems I am the minority. Global Agenda is F2P. I played in the Beta hoping it would be the next PS. Sadly it falls way short, but back to my point... It's F2P and I never play it. I wouldnt play WoW if it was F2P. Maybe my opinion is skewed because I'm at a place in my life where $15/mo doesnt mean much but judging by WoW, if kids want to play it they will find a way.