If PS2 became fee based would you pay?

Just remember that without those "leeches" we would have far less content- since the only interesting content, by definition, are the other players.

Don't get me wrong, I feel where you are coming from in that I think anyone who enjoys a game enough to spend numerous hours playing should probably try to support the developers- even if only a few bucks. Personally, when I got on board in BETA I had really high hopes and put a fair amount (i.e. way more than the $50 you quote above) into the game almost immediately but I have to say that so far they have not really made me feel that money was well spent in terms of the direction the game seems to be going. Strangely, I am eager to put some more money into the game and have actively been looking for a good reason to do so but it just seems like there are more and more reasons not to.

Some really nice player created content becomes available and just when I was thinking "well, whats another $10 some of this is cool (looking at you Iron Man helmet) and ends up in an independent creator's pocket" BAM! boneheaded cosmetic change that is, IMO, awful and makes me afraid of even cosmetic purchases. Honestly, I find it incredible.

No game is good enough for me to have to pay on a reoccurring basis. This certainly includes Planetside 2.

If they made it fee based per month, and I actually had money (because I am too young to have a job yet) I probably would, given that they manage to fix a lot of the game's bugs, optimize it, and start really adding depth to it (Hossin, Battle Islands, Continental Lattice, Resource Revamp, that stuff). It also means they could lower the cert cost of a lot of things, making new weapons more accessible.

Probably no, and it's not a question about the quality of the game. I've already spent a good amount of money on this game because I think it's of good quality. But I've always been averse to playing subscription-based games (even though I have in the past) because, to me, it implies some sort of obligation to continue playing while you are subscribed. And my free time can be irregular.

However, I don't think it especially curates the community. Games that you pay up front for (my favorite model, including minor DLC) or pay continuously for still have a large amount of rightful and unrightful complainers, and being a leecher doesn't make much of a difference when said players still have a time investment in the game.

But I do understand the arguments for either side. I think a bigger community garnered under its free-to-play model has its ups and downs and may or may not have ended up making much of a difference financially compared to a one-time or continuous fee.

Probably no, but mostly because I just don't like subscriptions.

I'd probably pay a one-time purchase though, if I felt the price was right at the time.

Lol

You are reading the truth

In its current state of balance and bug riddled client, no. With its lack of metagame, again no. With the current dev interaction on these forums, again no. With the current performance of the dev team, comparing the quality of player content (each one made by a single person) compared to the content released by the entire PS2 art department, again no.

I love the game, mainly because of the people I play along side. But the game and its development has more things wrong (some pretty big ones) than right at present. As such I couldn't justify paying a monthly fee for it (hence why I cancelled mine).

I've sunk somewhere around $200-$300 (scared to check) into this game, without taking into account my 9 months of subscription. I am not happy with the way the game is going. I feel like we've had things consistently under-delivered and the business model consists of milking players dry while doing the barest of minimum work to keep us hanging around. I think the game is an interesting case-study in how to dupe people with promises of innovation and future potential.

The game has been taken down the route of the lowest-common-denominator at every turn, with balance changes being made to be quick and simple (often only a number change in a spreadsheet) as opposed to the deeper changes required. Look at how air was balanced, in terms of pods, libs and AA/air interplay. Look at how infantry and vehicle balance was "sorted". Look at the NC MAX. Look at the Magrider. Look at the Striker. SOE have consistently done whatever they can to avoid making the hard, but necessary changes. And because I've spent money, you can't call me a leech. Rather, I'm a dissatisfied customer who no longer has the faith in the company required to support them. Until they prove me wrong, I cannot support the game and I will not recommend it to my gamer mates.

No way.

Paying a monthly fee for a shooter is an instant NOPE!

maybe if they paid me.

Yes but it would result in far fewer people playing, which would lower my interest in the game.

Free players make the game fun for the subscribing and boosting players.

Eliminating the F2P aspect could result in a cascading population drop and loss of subscribers.

My contention, as well as almost everyone i know, with COD, and now BF, is that these games are as deep as a puddle. They are simplistic twitch wars that rely (HEAVILY) on the ADHD nature of many young gamers, and the devs would rather pander to the cosmetic side of the games, than the actual gameplay. IMO, playng games for the graphics is like watching **** for the storyline.

I watch movies for the special effects. I play games for the playable content. Thats my opinion anyways.

They are successful because of KILLER advertisments, and the fact that they attract a much younger, and MUCH less demanding (and therefore capitulating) audience. There is no longer a good market for those that want a good FPS that has good depth, complexity and balanced gameplay in a combined arms game. ARMA III seems to be the only real option right now

HHEEEEELLLLLL NOOOOO. Ive never sub in a game before, and i have no intention of changing that.

I've already paid $150. I'm not paying any more

at this point, paying us for the extended beta test we've participated in is the only fair solution. paying SOE any more money? are you ******* kidding?

If they gave me my money back for the 40k SC Ive purchased and used on this game then yes, Id much rather this game be subscription based than F2P. F2P sucks.

Sure, I pay for a subscription now. I figure it's only fair, since I do have the income to comfortably afford it. However, I would be disappointed by a change like that. I like that there is a high quality game that some kid or young adult could play and only pay what they can afford. It's, I don't know, egalitarian or something.

What I don't like, though, is that sometimes it seems like paying gets you a bit too much of an advantage. I wish there were more cosmetic options and fewer boosts.

Not just no. H E double hockey stick no. Given the balance issues and the lack of any suggestion that population imbalance is more important than MLG, there's no way I would pay for this game in this state.

I think the question is moot, because the general trending of online games towards free to play already speaks volumes about what the current consumer base prefers. It has its advantages, especially in massive PvP games like PS2.

With the scale of PS2 especially, it's hard to recover from loss of subscribers with a sub based system. Because it has a tendency to snowball since there's that money barrier at the start, a barrier to those wanting to get back into the game after unsubbing, and a bigger need to keep content flowing at a constant pace. Whether this expectation is realistic or not, it's there.

But back to whether -I- would subscribe? If the populations remained decent, sure. I'm already one of those "whales" for it in its current form anyway, so I don't see why not. I'd probably want compensation though, should they significantly change the store to invalidate some purchases. But I could live with it and basically already am.

Will SOE do it? Nope. Changing your payment model from sub to F2P/Freemium is one thing. But there's no going back, nor would they even if it was easy. No point fighting the market trend if it's going to lose you money in the long run. Maggie actually said this on another twitch stream before and she's right. If people hate free to play so much, they should stop paying into it. It won't stop until that happens, but it's doubtful that it will without some huge change in the market or until it gets to such an extreme.

my sub runs out soon and i wont be paying again so NO

if PS2 was more like PS1 i would happily pay - i payed for that game for years with no regrets