Paying for xtra conts - Page 3

**Malorn** · 2012-04-04, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by headcrab13

Haha, that it was. That it was.

One point that could really change the whole argument is simply the price, I suppose. I'm assuming most people here figure the new continent(s) would cost as much as a normal expansion pack, or at least a typical $15 map pack.

If they did offer access to ALL the new continents for $5, for example, who could really turn that down?

It isn't a matter of price; it's the fact that the player population is split

Just because they can monetize something doesn't mean they should.

There are terrible things to monetize, and access to content is absolutely one of them.

Coreldan · 2012-04-04, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by headcrab13

Haha, that it was. That it was.

One point that could really change the whole argument is simply the price, I suppose. I'm assuming most people here figure the new continent(s) would cost as much as a normal expansion pack, or at least a typical $15 map pack.

If they did offer access to ALL the new continents for $5, for example, who could really turn that down?

Well, quite many would turn it down, cos they wont really use any money on the game.

One would think that a non paying player is not worth anything, but that's not true. Free players who enjoy the game will end up getting more people playing the game, if not by word of mouth etc, then by just being there, thus just making the population bigger and fights more epic.

That said, I do suppose that those who dont have a problem paying wouldnt have a major issue with a 5$ continent, but as said, it will still mean a lot lower pop on that continent, cos the free players wont be there, and Planetside 2 will need them too.

Shogun · 2012-04-04, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

See this video for reasons why paying for extra continents is bad.

http://extra-credits.net/episodes/microtransactions/

The whole video is good microtransaction information, but at 7:00 it talks about the problem this will cause specifically.

wow!
malorn, you sir always find the best words, infos and arguments.

and this video is the answer to every thread that ever showed up about f2p and microstransactions and to every thread that will show up in the future about this. everything that is said in this video is so damn right!
and i really hope this is the future of gaming. for it´s the only way to play without the feeling of being milked like a cashcow.
and f2p already works for the companys very well. almost all games that went f2p had some major income growth. so if the companys plan games from the beginning as f2p and do it the way it is promoted in this video, it´s a win-win situation.
especially planetside 2 needs to follow this! you cannot limit a continent to paying players ever! do you really want to pay for a cont that will always have a lower population than the others? in a game where population is the only content?

headcrab13 · 2012-04-04, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

One would think that a non paying player is not worth anything, but that's not true. Free players who enjoy the game will end up getting more people playing the game, if not by word of mouth etc, then by just being there, thus just making the population bigger and fights more epic.

That's very true, I can understand not wanting to alienate the F2P playerbase. I tend to think that most truly F2P players that never pay for anything will burn out after a while and stop playing (due to static-feeling characters and wielding the same old weapons), but I can't say for sure.

I'm not a microtransaction fanatic or anything, I just want to see SOE make the money they deserve. If they don't earn healthy profits, they won't be able to support PS2's infrastructure, routine maintenance, and content-filled patches. I also want to see PS2 become a resounding success so that the MMOFPS genre can grow.

headcrab13 · 2012-04-04, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

It isn't a matter of price; it's the fact that the player population is split.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm talking about post-launch continents becoming available after a few years. I can't imagine those long-time players wouldn't jump at the chance to fight on an additional massive continent in an entirely new environment.

As far as splitting the community, for the sliver of people who hadn't yet signed on the access to the new areas, following their outfit-mates into the new battlezone would be a great incentive.

And finally, when the population grows to multi-million player levels, even a small fraction of players who haven't opted for the new continent will poplock an entire continent, so they won't be hurting for action.

sylphaen · 2012-04-04, 06:20 PM

We want continents with lots of people playing in them.

What is the best way to achieve that ?
1. Paying a sub to have priority access over free players
2. Force free players to pay to get access to a zone (and have subbing players queue to get into that zone)

I think with case 2, those new continents are less likely to be contested by a high number of players.

Bonius · 2012-04-04, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by headcrab13

I see where you're coming from, but I'm talking about post-launch continents becoming available after a few years. I can't imagine those long-time players wouldn't jump at the chance to fight on an additional massive continent in an entirely new environment.

As far as splitting the community, for the sliver of people who hadn't yet signed on the access to the new areas, following their outfit-mates into the new battlezone would be a great incentive.

And finally, when the population grows to multi-million player levels, even a small fraction of players who haven't opted for the new continent will poplock an entire continent, so they won't be hurting for action.

Even after a few years the game would still have new players on a regular basis.

Example:

1 continent gets released every 6 months. By year 4, there is 8 continents, two expansion packs and an extra character slot available. Each continent costs 5$, each expansion 10$ and the extra character slot is priced at 5$.

Total sum for the whole deal: 65$

The veteran player has been able to aquire these things over a period of four years. Doing some crude math, you can say he's spent 16$/year for playing Planetside 2.

A new player joins. To be able to get access to all of the content the game has to offer, along with gaining the benefits of the expansion pack and character slot, he would also have to chip in 65$. But for him, it would be the same as buying a completely new game off the shelves.

It's pretty simple psychology really, that's why microtransactions works so well for companies in general. 5$ is barely something you notice being withdrawn from your bank account, but 65$ is another thing entirely.

In a free to play game, everyone will eventually spend a few dollars.

"Being an incentive" is another way of saying "Get this or you wont be accepted into the outfit". This would cause PS2 to lose market shares at a very rapid pace, since the whole game is about teamwork.

Point: Paying for extra continents? Not now, not ever.

BorisBlade · 2012-04-04, 06:33 PM

They arent so stupid as to make you pay for the basic aspects like new continents. Those will always be free, they will make their monies on the little crap, or even new vehicles, but never for new conts. There is no argument to be made here, its plain as day.

sylphaen · 2012-04-04, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by WildVS

HAHAHA! Worse thing I have ever heard T-Ray or anyone else for that matter say. Seriously? Well why bother with guns, vehicles, TREES? Just put a bunch of guys in underwear out on a blank land area and let em handfight.

Well, I kind of agree with you but in a way, the game is a framework (static rules and content) and the dynamic-content is generated by players.

What makes the game fun is dynamic-content. Playing alone with all those guns, vehicles and trees is not as exciting as PvP.

sylphaen · 2012-04-04, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by WildVS

It would also not be fun without the guns or environment. It's a matter of wording I guess. It would be better just to say "the gameplay is defined by the players"? But even that is not entirely true.

Ah well either way I am on the fence about paying for cont expansions. It would be more or less making players deciding whether to pay the SC for the camo paint job or a new place to fight. I would find it hard to believe anyone seriously just playing this game with no money involved.

Oh yes, for fun, there definitely needs to be the game and the players. I was only trying to emphasize why Shogun may have focused on the players part.

I also agree that there will definitely be money involved... How long can they keep a game running by offering visual effects ? I think their plan is eventually to get people to subscribe by offering a lot of conveniences for subbing players.

Redshift · 2012-04-04, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

The other, probably bigger reason for deserted cave was probably cos it was a horrible idea.

The caves were fantastic, people are just useless and can't think in 3 dimensions and remember layouts. The caves rocked, people sucked :P

Zulthus · 2012-04-04, 08:33 PM

Yea the caves themselves were really fun, but trying to find your way around with the damned ziplines was crazy.

Warborn · 2012-04-04, 08:39 PM

Dividing the player base along the lines of who payed for extra content and who didn't is a horrible, terrible idea. The playerbase needs to be kept together no matter what.

Shogun · 2012-04-04, 08:42 PM

well, i see where your coming from, but the game would be way more fun with underwear wrestling players, than with a lot of fancy guns but nobody to shoot at.

there is no pve in this game, so pvp equals content. maybe it´s really a wording issue.the guns, continents and vehicles are content, too but without the players using them they are useless.

cellinaire · 2012-04-04, 11:29 PM

Paying for xtra continent ??? Whoa..... what were you thinking?