Stop putting in stuff from PS1 that nobody wants.

Really? i mean REALLY?!?! you cant be serious!

its lack of players is NOT DUE TO GAMEPLAY MECHANICS!. quite the contrary in fact. PS1 was immensely popular for A DECADE. the ONLY reason why PS1 has so few players is because of technical limitations (old game) and the fact that its a sub system. If a carbon copy of PS1 was made (new shiny graphics of course), i would bet all my money that it would be more popular than PS2.

PS1 concepts would be incredibly popular if the ignoramus' would stop being so dang close minded.

No, however, the game was still not doing that amazing a year ago, no? Two years ago? Three years ago?

As I said, I've never played it. From what I've heard it was incredibly unbalanced though with very frustrating game play.

What I thought was going to happen.

See, now you're beginning to border on a mildly coherent argument.

No, PS2 was not a wild financial success for a myriad of reasons. It did alright, but certainly nothing resembling the massive amount of players or profit one might expect. It got very little in terms of advertising compared to the rather giant blitz PS2 has received, and it was released at a time when most computers/servers couldn't quite handle the task of running an MMO FPS. Couple that with a paltry amount of updates and only a single expansion, and no, I doubt any MMO would fair that well, especially at 10 years of running at a full 15 dollar subscription.

The marketing for Planetside 1 was so poorly done the games community ended up taking it upon themselves to do a guerrilla marketing campaign with youtube videos and stuff. SOE wrote off the game after the core combat expansion because it had peaked at merely 200,000 subscribers (The major reason this happened, aside from marketing, is Internet technology was still a bit early for handling up to 1000 players fighting over one base. Consider the fact it was released before broadband Internet access was really a thing, there's a LOT more to a games success or failure than its quality, if that weren't true certain brilliant games wouldn't be cult classics)

The game was booming again the year prior to PS2s release, right up to its release. People started playing PS2 after that, and of course are not going to go back to a subscription based game when the player base isn't there. PS1 survived an incredibly long time considering there were not any major changes or expansions that brought you all new game play as in other mmos. A game that is around that long with will eventually start loosing players, and when the players are your content, that issue will proliferate.

The game overall was very balanced considering how different each empire was IMO. The frustration was almost entirely due to the BFRs which were released later in the games life and were simply too powerful. In the end the ended up balancing them fairly well but it was a bit too late. The game play was very fun and the depth of the game play and meta game cant be compared to anything else.

Honestly, even after years and years of Planetside, I was having more fun playing it this summer than I have had playing PS2. They just are not comparable games in any sense. Planetside was hands down the best game I have ever played. If the player base was there I would go back to playing it while I waited to see if PS2 ever evolved into more than just a large scale generic shooter.

Oh my...Seriously, I'm ashamed to be a PS1 vet because of people like this fellow. I hate to say it, the original Planetside was not that popular. When people ask me what I'm playing, I say Planetside 2. The common response: "Planetside 2? I've never heard of Planetside 1." I've maybe run into two, maybe three people in real life that actually played the game. These are people who play video games as much if not more than I do. The only reason why it hasn't been taken back behind the woodshed and killed off is that there was just enough people playing it to keep the lights on.

You want the PS franchise to survive? It will have to evolve to attract what people expect in FPS games. That's how business rolls son. Supply and demand. The problem with the original Planetside was SOE was trying to shoehorn an FPS into an MMORPG. Can't blame them, that's what they were only known for at the time. Years have gone by and the gaming market has changed quite a bit. The same old formula isn't going to fly and wouldn't last a few weeks as a F2P game.

If anyone is closed-minded, its the handful of very vocal PS1 vets who think Planetside was the greatest game ever and every FPS should be like it. However, the real world dictates otherwise. Sure, there are a few things I would like to see make a comeback but as it stands right now, its not going to be like the original. Its time ya'll start to let go and deal with it. Planetside was just not that popular.

You know what, if you guys cared about PS1 that much, why don't you just start your subscriptions back up and go play it. Put your money where your mouth is rather than come over here and post the same nonsense every friggin week.

Fair enough.
As I said, I've never played it and can only go on what I heard and read.

I still think Orbital Strike in any kind of form is a horrible idea and bringing us closer to a giant space CoD.
And particularly because the games are different, not every idea from PS1 translates into a great addition for PS2.

See my reason above.

well balance is different.

Invis SMG guys aren't that scary in ps2... at all
OHK phoenix is getting nerfed
Lancer isn't that threatening atm.

That's because PS1 requires station access to play, I don't think station access sub is that popular.

PS1 launched with ~60K players, sustained ~50K players throughout Core Combat but dropped to 20-25K players right after BFR's were added then gradually declined until 2008 or so when subs was changed to only station access which is now a ghost town, who wants to pay $20/mo to access a bunch of games that aren't even worth paying a sub for just to play PS1?

On the claim that Planetside 1 was frustrating (Very unspecific claim so I'm curious what is meant by that, oh, BFR's of course. ******* things)...

This is odd, because I consistently find that Planetside 2 is considerably more frustrating to play than the original. I think partly because of comparatively fast time-to-kill (3 pheonix AI shots to kill versus 1) and partly I'm being hamstrung by knowing what Planetside 2's potential is having played the original, where capturing a continent was worth doing because it took considerably more time and effort to ghost it back afterward than for the sequel.

It still amuses me that one of the most annoying/frustrating things in Planetside 2, lazy rocket podding troopers with a Scythe/Reaver/Mosquito, was something it retained from Planetside 1's any empire can pull it Reaver.

You take a continent in Planetside 2 and an outfit zerg will take it back mere hours later, probably uncontested, whilst in Planetside 1 its mechanics were built such that you could hold a continent for days or weeks.
Maybe if it took a minimum of 10 minutes to capture each base (just on capture timer alone) Planetside 2 will be worth playing for its territorial aspects (Also gives defenders time to mass a counter-attack if they lose spawn), but for now, I'm finding it's got nothing over BF/CoD/etc aside from player numbers per server. It all just comes down to kills and big fights and this robs the sequel of any longevity for me, it's also led to an ugly focus on new weapons all the damn time to keep gameplay fresh that muddies the balance waters even more.

Sometimes my issues with the sequel seem to take the form of this feeling that the senior developers weren't quite sure what they wanted to deliver with the sequel, so it meandered and feels confused and unfocused as a consequence, comparatively Planetside 1 really felt like it knew what it wanted to do. For instance, the interplay between galaxies being used to transport resupply vehicles (ANT's) bases drained of power reserves due to base equipment being damaged meant you could also drain an otherwise secure base neutral so you could begin a cap in unusual places. Also because a base under siege would drain of power, you'd have attackers trying to mine the recharge point and defenders trying to get a resupply vehicle in to keep the fight going until reinforcements arrive from other fights.
The way small outfits could make big contributions by knocking out and holding a base generator that provided power to a tech plant that provided heavy tanks and aircraft to front line vehicle bays.

Several people explained the reasons why PS1 was not a massive blockbuster success several posts above yours.

And your logic is fairly flawed. You say you want the game to "evolve" by adhering to standards that have been practically set in stone by other FPS games? Yeah. Evolution implies venturing into new territory, not simply copying things from other games because that is what's expected. See the inherent dichotomy there?

Let's see, blah blah blah, using the phrase "handful of very vocal PS1 vets" to diminish the importance of opinions from those you disagree with by claiming there aren't very many, telling them to go back and play the old game, bringing in the terms "supply and demand" and referencing the "real world" as if he is the sole proprietor of actual knowledge...yup.

Thank you, sir. I've managed to fill out my "Internet troll debating" bingo card because of you.

we'll soon see, PS1 is launching as f2p sometime this summer, I honestly cant see people flocking to it, it feels old, like what you play for a fun evening in your clans retro game night, sure some metagame elements might be fun still but its never going to be a fresh new game again. Like buying BF2 for the first time now, great fun, still playable but limited by staleness and lack of a buzzing live community in comparison to being there at the time.

Add the complete oversupply of good quality f2p games right now and so many bargains at places/times like steam sales its not looking good for any 10 year old game trying to relaunch today. I expect itll gain a small following, split between vets and newbie but enough to pay for their development costs?

thats a bold statement. If it was really that easy, then SOE could have just done that and saved money in development frankly. There was a lot about ps1 that worked amazinly well, but that also may not translate well and be competitive with modern fps games the f2p model, or provide a universal appeal to both hardcore and casual players.

plus ps2 does improve on some aspects of ps1 quite nicely.

I do not want PS1. I do not want PS1 with better graphics. As great a game as I think it was, I do not want to play it again. Not only because it's old, but because I played the thing for 4+ years. With only one expansion and no major updates. Even WoW has head, what, 5 expansions now? Among a whole host of retooling, major patches and additions?

If you don't keep an MMO fresh, it's going to wither and grow stale. It's not like a classic game, such as Baldur's Gate, that you can pop in, play, finish, and then leave sit for several more years before touching again.

They needed to create a new game based on the core principles founded by PS1 while also adding in new features that make the gameplay fresh and new. What they did was create a generic, albeit big, FPS and lay a fine veneer of Planetside over top of it via names and models with little connection to the original.

No, quite the opposite is true. As far as playerbase retention is concerned, the worst thing SOE could do, or any company could do for that matter is ape the genre leader with a poorly crafted, rushed, money-grab sequel to a little known franchise, because Battlefield will always offer a better Battlefield experience than PS2 ever can. By copying the competition and coming out with an inferior product, they ensure that their product will always be stuck in the shadow of that competition. I can't think of a better way of guaranteeing that your game suffers an exodus. This is SOE's intense stupidity at work. If you're going to go the route of copying something, you need to make yours better for it to succeed.

A modernised version of PS1 would retain its player base even after a new games comes out because it would offer something that those games do not. It's so very simple: If you offer something good that nobody else does, people will stick with you because you're the only person offering it, and it's good. If you offer a vastly inferior knockoff of an experience that your competition has so firmly nailed down that you will never even come close to being able to compete, people will leave in their droves when said competition launches a new version.

EDIT:

THIS! THOSE! THAT! THEM WORDS! THESE!
You're a wise man and you've got it SPOT ON.

You mean like.....fun stuff? Of course I did hate BFR's, caves, Battle Islands, hackers.........

Sometimes it's really bad to reinvent bicycles and broke things that actually worked... worked for 10 years straight.

Look at PS2! It's mindless pew-pew BF3-like shooter with no point, nothing to achieve, no goal, no motivation to fight except for gaining exp and statpadding on KDR. Strategy gone, metagame gone, outfit driven special operations gone, vehicles variety gone. Developers made the biggest mistake not making it like PS1, because PS1 is better than PS2, all it needed is better graphics and new features.

Maybe you'll be sick of having the same PS1 game, but I'm sick of having mindless shooter as it is at current state!

yes i would
if it would be sooo much better and so brilliant as you all claim it was and the "sequel" would be soooo bad you claim i would happily play the original and pay the subscription...

that you dont tells a lot how much "better" the original must be

ps1 was great in its time, innovative and never seen/attempted before (and after i like to mention)... kudos
ps2 is an other game, different but in the spirit of the original. it again is innovative and tries things no other game tries/dares to do... but its another game

dont fool yourself, alot of things in ps1 are plain bad, alot of other things that worked ok/well in ps1 would not work in ps2. just think about it, maximum of 128 players per map to (theoretically) several hundred in a single "map" (as in basefight)

... and really i dont get it, all the whinners with "nerf this, nerf that, xy ruined your game" because a shotgun is good at cqb (man, its a shotgun!) or a rocket dares to explode on contact with a meatbag (its a freaking rocket... what do you expect?) but orbital strikes with their HUUUUUGE potential to being really gamebreaking death from above stuff is ok... have you seen the threads over underbarrel grenadelaunchers that some clever guys use as indirect arty with an engie and a spotter... this forum will explode in rage and tears...