[Dev Quote] Malorn: There is a dark side to F2P, and it’s an obvious one.

I am currently F2P.

I coughed up for two x six month membership stints and also bought some SC.

Right now though, until SOE allow Paypal for paying membership, I am staying F2P. There are a couple of other reasons too, but that is the main reason.

Tbh I like the F2P model. Could try the game for free and if I liked it, I could still play it for free. Subscription model is a no go. I would just feel that I "have" to play the game because I pay every month. I could buy the game once depending on the price but I'd still want to try it first for free.

Think the max amount I could pay for a weapon is 5 $/€. 7 is a bit too much. Until now I think I have spent about 30€ in this game mainly for customization. Imo PS2 should push the customization a bit further.

With DLC every game is "free to play" these days.

This decade will be remembered as the "fleece the fanbois decade".

EVE Online has been subscription based since day one and have been stated to NEVER going F2P.

The nice thing about EVE is that the game itself and every expansion ever is free, you pay for your monthly sub, and can pay for PLEX-cards, that you can then either use to get yourself play-time (30 days per card) or SELL TO OTHER PLAYERS FOR IN-GAME CASH.

This kills the gold-seller market, because you got a fair and functional means of converting IRL money to ISK, the in-game currency. You can also work your way to the pint in-game where you earn so much ISK you can buy PLEX cards for the ISK PLEX sellers want that you essentially play the game "for free". Ofc, you do have to work to get that state of affairs to become a reality, and this helps get content to other players.

And on the side you can buy AURUM for IRL cash to get cosmetics, but that's also all you can buy with AURUM.

PS2 could have a system where you pay a monthly fee for the game and the whole client and all add-ons/patches remains free as it is right now, and you get all weapons unlocked except the gold/platinum/special weapons and perhaps some individual normal weapons.

Experience earns you certs as normal, and certs are needed to upgrade weapons with attachments, as normal. However, you could have a market where an in-game play-time item is sold for certs. You could also have a one-time pay incentive to get more characters (let's say 3 is the cap on the basic sub) or you can pay for any weapon/attachment as per the deal now.

Problem is, while this system COULD work IMHO, it won't at this point for PS2. The game is two years old and I don't think even a fraction of the player-base will accept having to pay a monthly sub for this game at this point. This makes me sad, as I've basically had a sub going for almost my entire play-time, solely as a habit - I have paid for EVE for over 9 years now. It comes with the MMO territory as far as I'm concerned.

If we ever see a PS3 though, a PS3 where there is a PROPER launch on schedule not months before, bugs are stamped out as soon as they are found and the basic weapon and faction balance is clearly defined and laid down from the very start. I'd pay for that. In a heart-beat.

I guess it remain to be seen in a few years if that ever becomes a reality. Gaming NEEDS a game like PS2. A game that *DOES* epic scale battles and full frontal wars, not just brag about doing it. The closest replacement we got for PS2 is Battlefield, and battlefield is a AvsB 64vs64 arena shooter at the end of the day, with limited aircraft and tanks and boots on the ground. F that joke.

If the Planetside concept ever dies, the world of online gaming will lose something that is absolutely needed.

It's just such a pity that SOE don't seem to know how to handle their unique potential here.

That or the PS2 dev's bosses are screwing things over with poor executive decisions. I would not be surprised if that was proven to be the case.

Practically every single P2P game out there has a trial system where you can test the game out and see if you want to play it.

Personally I think I like a modified version of EQ or EQ2's model: Free to play to a point. Once you hit that, you sub (not micro buy).

I like this because its like a free trial, but unlike most trials you actually get to play for a while. Getting you invested in the work behind your character or what not. Then you're likely to sub and and keep going. Subbing before then is a good idea too for perks like inventory size, mail, bazaar, and starting guilds, as well as using chat channels.

Actually, having a cheaper membership with less benefits sounds like a decent idea.

Edit: SOE has to realize this game is also played by people who live in economies where the USD or EU are very expensive. These people would spend money on the game if they had cheaper options. I have spent $50USD so far, but in my economy, that's like having spent $100USD due to costs of living.

A problem with comparing a new, future subscription-based game with EVE lies in the fact that EVE hails from an age where subscription-based P2P was the norm and F2P was basically non-existant. It was much more of a fair ground for it to prosper and maintain that prosperity as a P2P title than any post-F2P P2P titles can ever hope for.

In other words, launching a P2P title in the age that EVE did was the normal thing to do, while doing the same now or in the future isn't and carries an inherent risk that not all companies are willing to take.

F2P isn't like that unless you're just doing it wrong.
Here's two wonderful, in-depth explanations of exactly how the right ways and wrong ways for F2P to work.

First is a video that explains exactly what PS2 is doing wrong right now!
Second is on how F2P can churn out a short boost in cash, then burn out entirely, followed by exactly how it can be done properly.




(The money bomb idea is genius! If only it could be adapted to PS2...)


PS2's big issue is two fold:
Everything in game is so spendy that the "2 dollar enjoyable experience" doesn't really exist in PS2, and they don't pull in enough new players.

The player part is simple to fix (Simple in concept, and will generate immense revenue, but it is time consuming).
Immediately after the PS4 release is said and done, they need to drop everything but maintainance to make the game easier to grasp and be enjoyable for new players, without ruining the current experience for the vets.

This just means that the devs need to focus +95% of their efforts on making easier tutorial materials.
When that starts working, PS2 will be bringing in more players, and even just part way in, they will be making enough from most everyone that they can lower item costs so we can all enjoy cheaper priced weapons (thus creating the cheap, enjoyable experience for the "$5 or less" and "Whale" players), all the while making SOE more money off the same game with less dependence on "whales".

The extra money would also mean more money for a larger staff, which in turn means quicker and better working updates.
So not only would we be getting new content faster (IE, they could have done a good 60% of Hossin at the exact same time they were doing the optimization updates that took +3 months!), but we also get more eyes in the PS2 team's office(s), so less bugs get through without them being spotted.



The current self destructive, high cost F2P model they are using is why so many of us feel that PS2 is slowly dying. If they don't start focusing on making smaller profits from larger numbers, the outcome of killing the game is 100% certain!
Just look at the player numbers.
The populations are dwindling since beta/release.
The the server count has dropped considerably, forcing server merge after server merge.
And the players per server are far, far, far lower than what the game is built for.

I remember when Helios and Connery (the two biggest servers!) were both so full on fridays and the weekend that sometimes you were stuck on whatever continent you logged in on.
Now both have long since been merged into Connery, we have continent locks so we can at least run into some decent fights during prime time (versus having 3 continents constantly available!), and still we were sometimes getting stuck in the VR room for a few minutes during the holiday season.

Now, we have a fraction of the population.
It's juuuust big enough to fill a continent and still have some spare change floating around on the other continent.

Maybe there is a way to use both the f2p model and the 60$ retail model.
Basically what we have now, except players can choose to "buy" the game for a normal 60$ retail price at any point, and gain permanent ingame benefits over f2p players, like a +50% xp boost or something, i dunno.
You would still keep the subscription model.

Sounds kind of wierd, but if the problem really is that people dont "buy" the game for 60$ then why not let people do that.
You also need to keep the f2p model, because as someone stated above, they loved the game when they didnt think they would, and would never had bought the game at retail price (but ended up spending money on the game anyway)

Here's what needs to be done:
Improve the game to KEEP players here, and make sure that the F2P model is retained. If PS3 were to come out, it should be a F2P, but after PS2, I'm sure the devs will realize how important availability is when they check bugs out; in other words, the game needs to be available to more people, via optimization, advertisement, and bug fixing. Having MORE players means that more people will pay to keep improving the game; a lot of people don't want to pay a subscription fee for a F2P game just because they're told to do so.

Problem is that if you look at the current market. Pretty much only WoW, EVE and a couple of Korean MMOs that can use a subscription model successfully. The reason is they already have a solid playerbase hooked. Had WoW been released today, few people would have put up with paying both full retail and a sub for that game. A whole bunch of others tried and failed. They either shut down or went F2P which is horrible because you need to design the game for a F2P model from the start.

I used to play SWTOR after it went F2P.
And TBH: mostly I felt myself pretty neat for playing F2P. (I was F2P the vast majority of the time
Leveling up goes more slowly... but that is an issue only if you feel playing the game is a chore unless your going up against an end-boss... I enjoyed the low level missions, the cutscenes, the story... so I wouldn't have subsribed.
Once at max level, any membership benefit of type "more XP!" is useless..
so, for SWTOR you are left with "access"; access to operations and pvp. I mostly bought those in game for in-game currency.. as F2P there is a cap of how much cash you can have.. and what was I going to buy anyway? a 20 million speeder? eh.. no thanks. I have a lightsaber already and a spaceship; speeder is just for going places and I have 5 already. Even now, even the big speeders only transport yourself anyway; any seeming extra seats remain empty
Pitfall 1 I guess in the youtube movie from another post.


Now, when WoW came out, it was a revolution. It was also pretty close to the death of successors:
WoW keeps being updated, rebalanced, and bugs removed.
Therefore, it is very, very difficult to come out with a game that is as polished as WoW. (and I don't like WoW)
So, you look around;
you can pay 10-15$ for a polished game,
or 10-15$ for a game filled with bugs, with slow updates, and little amount of things to do once you reach "endgame"...
That competition is very hard to win I think.
So, which WoW are you releasing today?
-Current, polished WoW?
-Moment-of-Release WoW but with better graphics?


Is this game even officialy released or is it still beta for PS4?
If you can't deliver the "polished-WoW", it is time to reduce prices. Just imo, of course.
I am baffled that developers are o-k with granting F2P, but not with creating "light" access.
Suppose currently 20% of players is member, or paying SC close to membership;
80% is F2P. Going to 5$/month, half the F2P crowd leaves. Leaving 40%; double the membership crowd.
But, this would not have been a disaster; servers were overpopulated once.
At that point, the 'light' access would have meant double revenue, and solved any overpop issues;

I can confirm I'm part of the 10% that spends way too much money on this game.

I've spent so much money on this game it's ridiculous. I initially started playing this game thinking I wouldn't spend more than $10. Now a year and a half later I have probably bought over $300 worth of SC not including 1.5 years of membership fees.

I have so many camos, helmets, and vehicle cosmetics that I hardly use anymore lol. I just recently bought the 2 year anniversary bundle @ 3599 SC. I probably will keep dumping money into this game as they release more cosmetics that only other players can see (helmets).

But I think the F2P model is a necessary evil for a game like planetside. It keeps the revenue incoming so the developers have incentive to keep adding stuff to this game. I also like seeing the waves of new free to play players. They are what keep this game alive. If the game was empty, I wouldn't have any incentive to keep spending money or playing.

I also buy stuff because I really do like this game. I have never seen a game where the developers listen to the community as much as these guys do. There is currently no competition out there for a game like this.

BTW, anyone see that recent south park episode "Freemium isn't Free"?