Support NeoGAF

BattleMonkey · Oct 17, 2012

I dunno, bunch of guildies planned on coming back and were looking forward to the cartel coin incentive for their past subs. They had hoped to use their coins to purchase possibly stuff like unlocking operations or warzone play at least. Them having to resub to get any of these credits is going to be a big turn off for them to return.

Wallach · Oct 17, 2012

Milly79 said:
Servers up. Also they added a page to see how many CCs you have. I only have 1300. :\

They only show 850 points for me, because they only list 4 months of sub time. So not only would I have to re-sub to get any of them, I'd have to go deal with their CS to get it adjusted to whatever it should be. Doesn't sound very enticing.

Cystm · Oct 17, 2012

Yooni: Did you get that thing I sent you?

Anoregon · Oct 17, 2012

Jesus, just saw the new mouse-over info on the sub/F2P differences page. It's kind of a disaster. You can't even permanently unlock main features like warzones, you have to buy weekly passes for unlimited access (for one week). Also, there's a flat-out gear restriction preventing F2P from equipping purples.

The game isn't going F2P. It's offering a glorified trial. The paywall is extreme and insurmountable.

Vildiil · Oct 17, 2012

Anoregon said:
Jesus, just saw the new mouse-over info on the sub/F2P differences page. It's kind of a disaster. You can't even permanently unlock main features like warzones, you have to buy weekly passes for unlimited access (for one week). Also, there's a flat-out gear restriction preventing F2P from equipping purples.

The game isn't going F2P. It's offering a glorified trial. The paywall is extreme and insurmountable.

Yeah it's a very bad F2P model. I basically wouldn't be able to do anything if I tried logging in when it goes F2P. I kinda have an itch to play a bit again but I'd have to resub for sure since all my characters have full purples and all I care about is Warzones.

gotee12 · Oct 17, 2012

It looks to me like EA has ignored everything the successful F2P models have taught the rest of the industry thus far...

Anoregon · Oct 17, 2012

gotee12 said:
It looks to me like EA has ignored everything the successful F2P models have taught the rest of the industry thus far...

Seriously, it's kind of amazing.

gatti-man · Oct 17, 2012

Giolon said:
I honestly don't think there's enough people left that care about this game for them to have to backtrack. Most people who would have been interested in coming back for the free Cartel Coins will probably see "You must subscribe before F2P to get your coins" and say "Fuck it, I'm gonna go back to Panda/GW2."

I say this as someone who's still currently playing the game.

*raises hand* this is exactly what I'm doing and I wanted to come back.

Ken · Oct 17, 2012

Anoregon said:
Jesus, just saw the new mouse-over info on the sub/F2P differences page. It's kind of a disaster. You can't even permanently unlock main features like warzones, you have to buy weekly passes for unlimited access (for one week). Also, there's a flat-out gear restriction preventing F2P from equipping purples.

The game isn't going F2P. It's offering a glorified trial. The paywall is extreme and insurmountable.

That sounds terrible.

Cystm · Oct 17, 2012

Anoregon said:
Jesus, just saw the new mouse-over info on the sub/F2P differences page. It's kind of a disaster. You can't even permanently unlock main features like warzones, you have to buy weekly passes for unlimited access (for one week). Also, there's a flat-out gear restriction preventing F2P from equipping purples.

The game isn't going F2P. It's offering a glorified trial. The paywall is extreme and insurmountable.

Why would they allow you to permanently unlock anything that people are paying for at a monthly rate? How is what you are complaining about reasonable at all?

You have to pay to experience the parts of the game you enjoy at a presumably smaller price point than people that sub to the game, shocking news.

Sorry the Cartel Coins didn't work out for you the way you anticipated, but now you are just bitching about shit that is perfectly logical.

I basically wouldn't be able to do anything if I tried logging in when it goes F2P. I kinda have an itch to play a bit again but I'd have to resub for sure since all my characters have full purples and all I care about is Warzones.

Did you not actually read the FAQ or what?

Cannot purchase most purple items unless a license is purchased via cartel coins.

We don't even know what the licenses or whatever they are calling them is going to cost, so you really don't have to do shit "for sure" just yet, right?

Turns out you cannot just experience all the shit the game offers without paying some amount of money. Shocking developments. Boo hoo.

Edit, bolding this, just because I want to make sure it's not passed over:

It needs to be said that 3 Warzones and/or Flashpoints per week is flawed in that, for new people coming in, they are going to need more time to adjust to Warzones than 3 fucking matches per week! Otherwise they are going to get in and get CC'd out the ass and frustrated without having the ability to actually figure out how to succeed and thus have fun in Warzones which takes time. 3 matches? Fucking, nope. Where is the incentive to purchase something that is largely going to feel confusing and frustrating?

They will hopefully adjust that to at the very least 3 per day.

Anoregon · Oct 17, 2012

Cystm said:
Why would they allow you to permanently unlock anything that people that are paying for at a monthly rate? How is what you are complaining about reasonable at all?

Because literally every successful F2P game has a mechanism to do so.

BattleMonkey · Oct 17, 2012

I can see them doing this since they don't have enough stuff to sell for this game, but they should consider doing a one time unlock purchase for specific functions that cost more than a week pass.

Cystm · Oct 17, 2012

Anoregon said:
Because literally every successful F2P game has a mechanism to do so.

Show me, please. My google searching is litterally not showing anything to support that.

Ken · Oct 17, 2012

Cystm said:
Show me, please. My google searching is litterally not showing anything to support that.

LotRO, I think?

Actually ignore me since I'm not even sure what you're all discussing.

BattleMonkey · Oct 17, 2012

Ken said:
LotRO, I think?

Lotr did a lot of bad things too, such as having you pay to just get quests. Once you reached a certain zone, you no longer got quests and had to buy zone unlocks to get quests anymore. Mounts were a must buy also since free players got crap. Lotr pvp was quite different too and required paying to really play it originally, it was completely locked out if you didn't pay. Don't know if they lifted that. Champions at least had unlimited pvp though it locked free players into their own free groups and not mix with everyone else.

They are letting players play flash points and war zones 3 times a week even if you don't pay here. Flash points is fine since most players who are f2p are not gonna care to do that many flash points. The war zones is what most will want unlimited access for.

They also are likely doing this way because players who have accumulated coins already would just use those coins to unlock what they want permanently and never pay again. Can see them adding permanent unlock passes in the future once most players have spent their accumulated coins.

Anoregon · Oct 17, 2012

Cystm said:
Show me, please. My google searching is litterally not showing anything to support that.

DDO, Lotro, LoL, TF2, off the top of my head. All of them have permanent feature unlocks that can be obtained either by money, accrued in-game currency, or just randomly via time spent playing.

UltraMav · Oct 17, 2012

I wish that they would at least allow unlimited 1-49 warzones for leveling and start slapping the restrictions on at endgame, would allow people to learn the warzones as they level and to mix up the leveling experience more. Although I suppose that could be giving too much away for nothing, since questing is unlimited.

BattleMonkey · Oct 17, 2012

Anoregon said:
DDO, Lotro, LoL, TF2, off the top of my head. All of them have permanent feature unlocks that can be obtained either by money, accrued in-game currency, or just randomly via time spent playing.

Lol and tf2 are not MMOs. Lotr had tons of restrictions such as paying for the entire leveling experience bit by bit while it is all free in swtor. DDO was the most liberal with giving players stuff but it also involved a crazy grind to keep free, otherwise you had to buy unlocks just to frigging lvl up every so many levels.

CzarTim · Oct 17, 2012

I just wish they'd do a PVP lobby. No server, just a DOTA-style area to queue. Everyone is level 50 and has equal gear. Charge me for cosmetic armor or something, but to me, that's where my interest lies.

Cystm · Oct 17, 2012

Anoregon said:
DDO, Lotro, LoL, TF2, off the top of my head. All of them have permanent feature unlocks that can be obtained either by money, accrued in-game currency, or just randomly via time spent playing.

LoL and TF2 don't have subscribers to contend with, which was my whole counter point. Not to mention the fact that they are clearly not MMOs nor do they have persistent worlds and so on.

As for measuring success in an MMO, that's going to be subjective admittedly.

DDO? I mean, sure? I can't track down subscription numbers, but I cannot see them being that high or at all comparative to TORs. As for their F2play model it mentions in the fine print that:

Permanent Premium Features include three character slots per server and currency cap and auction listings raised to the game limit.

Source.

As for LotRO? Some minor features can be purchased for a one time fee, such as "Shared Banks" and "Wardrobes" but the real meat, the gameplay is relegated to a max of 4 in the example of skirmishes but you can purchase more, and it mentions nothing of permanency throughout there little chart.

Unless I am missing something perhaps?

That's hardly "literally every successful F2P game has a mechanism to do so" Right?

That's a whole lot of hyperbole, that I think is stemming from your disappointment with the Cartel Coins, which I hope they address mother fucking soon.

Anoregon · Oct 17, 2012

Cystm said:
LoL and TF2 don't have subscribers to contend with, which was my whole counter point. Not to mention the fact that they are clearly not MMOs nor do they have persistent worlds and so on.

As for measuring success in an MMO, that's going to be subjective admittedly.

DDO? I mean, sure? I can't track down subscription numbers, but I cannot see them being that high or at all comparative to TORs. As for their F2play model it mentions in the fine print that:

Source.

As for LotRO? Some minor features can be purchased for a one time fee, such as "Shared Banks" and "Wardrobes" but the real meat, the gameplay is relegated to a max of 4 in the example of skirmishes but you can purchase more, and it mentions nothing of permanency throughout there little chart.

Unless I am missing something perhaps?

That's hardly "literally every successful F2P game has a mechanism to do so" Right?

That's a whole lot of hyperbole, that I think is stemming from your disappointment with the Cartel Coins, which I hope they address mother fucking soon.

That DDO quote is either out of date or out of context. I play the game. I know what I'm talking about. The entirety of the game (classes, races, quest/dungeon areas, etc) can be permanently unlocked on your whole account without server restrictions via the use of Turbine Points, which can be accrued via in-game activities as well as purchased outright. I thought LOTRO functioned very similarly due to it being the same company, but there does seem to be some pretty heavy differences.

How many successful F2P games are there? What's considered successful? I said literally because I can't think of a single game that either started as, or transitioned to a F2P model that was as strict and heavy-handed as the current EA model. DDO was on the brink of having the plug pulled, and it's transition to a well-thought out model that includes Free, premium, and subscription-based play-styles absolutely saved the game and increased the player-base and exposure. A good model will do that. A model that basically lets you play only the single-player sections of the game with every single convenience feature heavily restricted or removed is just going to frustrate people.

StudioTan · Oct 17, 2012

Anoregon said:
Jesus, just saw the new mouse-over info on the sub/F2P differences page. It's kind of a disaster. You can't even permanently unlock main features like warzones, you have to buy weekly passes for unlimited access (for one week). Also, there's a flat-out gear restriction preventing F2P from equipping purples.

The game isn't going F2P. It's offering a glorified trial. The paywall is extreme and insurmountable.

Yup, sucks you only get a few hundred hours of leveling content for nothing. What a rip-off.

If you want all the extra content pay the fucking $15, it's really not a lot of money. I play 2 hours a day just doing nothing but PVP. That's 60 hours of play time a month for 15 bucks. A 2 hour movie costs the same.

Anoregon · Oct 17, 2012

StudioTan said:
Yup, sucks you only get a few hundred hours of leveling content for nothing. What a rip-off.

If you want all the extra content pay the fucking $15, it's really not a lot of money. I play 2 hours a day just doing nothing but PVP. That's 60 hours of play time a month for 15 bucks. A 2 hour movie costs the same.

Really? Your argument in support of a crappy F2P model, for a game that pretty much unarguably is going F2P due to it's dwindling subscription base, is "you're lucky anything is free and you should subscribe anyway"?

Well, uh, ok then.

Ken · Oct 17, 2012

Cystm said:
As for LotRO? Some minor features can be purchased for a one time fee, such as "Shared Banks" and "Wardrobes" but the real meat, the gameplay is relegated to a max of 4 in the example of skirmishes but you can purchase more, and it mentions nothing of permanency throughout there little chart.

Skirmishes aren't really the "real meat" IMO. They are just an activity to do aside from normal questing; I think I've only done maybe 2 skirmishes in my time with LotRO and found them kind of boring.

Not really sure what I can compare skirmishes to in SWTOR though.

StudioTan · Oct 17, 2012

Anoregon said:
Really? Your argument in support of a crappy F2P model, for a game that pretty much unarguably is going F2P due to it's dwindling subscription base, is "you're lucky anything is free and you should subscribe anyway"?

Well, uh, ok then.

I don't believe that's what I said. I said you get hundreds of hours of content for free and you're bitching that you can't permanently unlock features on a free account that subscribers pay $15/month to get.

What do you think would be a fair price to permanently let you PVP forever without a sub?

Cystm · Oct 17, 2012

Anoregon said:
That DDO quote is either out of date or out of context. I play the game. I know what I'm talking about. The entirety of the game (classes, races, quest/dungeon areas, etc) can be permanently unlocked on your whole account without server restrictions via the use of Turbine Points, which can be accrued via in-game activities as well as purchased outright. I thought LOTRO functioned very similarly due to it being the same company, but there does seem to be some pretty heavy differences.

That quote is sourced in my post, but fair enough. I still feel like the two games don't really align in a few significant ways, like subscriber numbers and quality of content, which is entirely subjective, so yeah, point taken.

Anoregon said:
How many successful F2P games are there? What's considered successful? I said literally because I can't think of a single game that either started as, or transitioned to a F2P model that was as strict and heavy-handed as the current EA model.

I don't think we both think that the word literally, literally means the same thing. Literally.

Anoregon said:
DDO was on the brink of having the plug pulled, and it's transition to a well-thought out model that includes Free, premium, and subscription-based play-styles absolutely saved the game and increased the player-base and exposure. A good model will do that. A model that basically lets you play only the single-player sections of the game with every single convenience feature heavily restricted or removed is just going to frustrate people.

I agree, but at a certain point somethings need to be restricted to balance things out, and I also think they do need to loosen the restrictions to Warzones and Flashpoints more so than 3 per week. That's just absurdly low.

Milly79 · Oct 17, 2012

Welp, JC is fucking broke to hell and back.

Wallach · Oct 17, 2012

I can't think of any major F2P game where the model did not allow you to purchase content rights on a permanent basis. There is usually a split between character-based and account-based unlocks, but I have never seen a model try this micro-subscription shit before.

These weekly content passes need to be outrageously cheap for this model to work. I am very curious to see their pricing; the idea on its face is one of the worst I think I have ever heard, but it's possible some very aggressive pricing on the content can make it work somehow. I am not optimistic that aggressive pricing is written on any EA documents out there right now.

Draxal · Oct 17, 2012

How many fp's was it for the weekly, 3?

I honestly don't mind that.

The real irritating thing is the returning players not getting the coins, that's the only real egregious thing to me.

StudioTan · Oct 17, 2012

Wallach said:
I can't think of any major F2P game where the model did not allow you to purchase content rights on a permanent basis. There is usually a split between character-based and account-based unlocks, but I have never seen a model try this micro-subscription shit before.

Age of Conan is one that comes to mind off the top of my head.

Wallach · Oct 17, 2012

StudioTan said:
Age of Conan is one that comes to mind off the top of my head.

I'm pretty sure in AoC when you buy an expansion pass it is unlocked on the account permanently, similar to LotRO. (edit - when I say "expansion pass" I don't mean just buying the expansion, I mean buying the a la carte packs)

The model they are pushing for SWTOR, your pass expires after one week for that piece of content.

Won · Oct 17, 2012

Sounds like a terrible F2P system, but I guess that shouldn't surprise anyone at this point.

Not gonna return to this then.

StudioTan · Oct 17, 2012

Wallach said:
I'm pretty sure in AoC when you buy an expansion pass it is unlocked on the account permanently, similar to LotRO. (edit - when I say "expansion pass" I don't mean just buying the expansion, I mean buying the a la carte packs)

The model they are pushing for SWTOR, your pass expires after one week for that piece of content.

Only for the expansion. For dungeons and stuff you buy 3 or 7 day passes.

Won said:
Sounds like a terrible F2P system, but I guess that shouldn't surprise anyone at this point.

Not gonna return to this then.

So what exactly do you think the F2P model should be? What would you be willing to pay for and for how much?

CzarTim · Oct 17, 2012

StudioTan said:
So what exactly do you think the F2P model should be? What would you be willing to pay for and for how much?

Charge for all cosmetic items (mounts/armor/weapons/pets). Charge for permanent access to content packs for pve (new FPs/OPs) with temporary/limited access earnable via ingame methods. Charge for permanent WZ access and temporary/limited earned via ingame.

StudioTan · Oct 17, 2012

CzarTim said:
Charge for all cosmetic items (mounts/armor/weapons/pets). Charge for permanent access to content packs for pve (new FPs/OPs) with temporary/limited access earnable via ingame methods. Charge for permanent WZ access and temporary/limited earned via ingame.

You forget the second part, what is a fair price for permanent access?

CzarTim · Oct 17, 2012

StudioTan said:
You forget the second part, what is a fair price for permanent access?

For WZ? I'd say 20-30$ if it includes all future stuff. For the PVE stuff, I'd think they'd be better off selling them in packs or individually rather than permanent for all future releases. Let's say 1-3$ per FP depending on length and $5 per OP. Of course, subscribers get it all included in their sub plus CC.

If Valve taught us anything, you can make a shitload off of cosmetic items. If they set up a Steam Workshop-esk feature like SOE is doing to their MMOs, they could give the content away for free.

Milly79 · Oct 17, 2012

JC Pub side has 50 people on ATM. GG Bioware with your fucked servers. :\

StudioTan · Oct 17, 2012

CzarTim said:
For WZ? I'd say 20-30$ if it includes all future stuff. For the PVE stuff, I'd think they'd be better off selling them in packs or individually rather than permanent for all future releases. Let's say 1-3$ per FP depending on length and $5 per OP. Of course, subscribers get it all included in their sub plus CC.

If Valve taught us anything, you can make a shitload off of cosmetic items. If they set up a Steam Workshop-esk feature like SOE is doing to their MMOs, they could give the content away for free.

Why would anyone sub with insane deals like that? I can play for free and every 2 or 3 months plop down 5 bucks to get the new Op that is unlocked permanently? You expect to pay less than 2 months sub fee for a lifetime of PVP content?

Does TF2 give you 200-300 hours of story content for free? Does TF2 have a couple of hundred devs working on it pumping out new content? Cosmetic items alone will not fund an MMO of this size.

CzarTim · Oct 17, 2012

StudioTan said:
Why would anyone sub with insane deals like that? I can play for free and every 2 or 3 months plop down 5 bucks to get the new Op that is unlocked permanently? You expect to pay less than 2 months sub fee for a lifetime of PVP content?

Does TF2 give you 200-300 hours of story content for free? Does TF2 have a couple of hundred devs working on it pumping out new content? Cosmetic items alone will not fund an MMO of this size.

Two months of sub is more than they are getting from me now. That's the price of many multiplayer focused games (ala War of the Roses), they should count themselves lucky that they can get anything more out of me considering I was a launch CE buyer and subbed for 6 months. Because, let me tell you how this goes: I resub for one month to get my shitty coins because I'm a sucker, and then I only log in once-in-a-blue-moon for a match or two. If they release that mini-expansion, then I'll buy that too to continue my story. Besides that, cosmetic items are the only way to get money out of me. And I have a feeling there will be a lot like me too -- maybe for PVE rather than PVP, but that same principle. The F2P sub they plan to offer is there for people who are still subbing now. The people here for the community. They might get a few new subs after launching, but those will fade with time as well.

I know they won't charge that little, but the fact that EA created a multi-hundred-million dollar product that is economically infeasible is hardly the consumer's fault. Making it too much of a hassle to play without a sub will just make me do what I am already doing: not play. Like it or not, hats are the answer. Planetside 2 is betting the house on this fact. If I have a reason to login regularly (and not, let's say, feel pressure about letting my sub go to waste) then I will have a reason to want to make my character look cool. If there wasn't a money problem, they wouldn't be taking such drastic measures to attract new and old players alike, so it just comes down to whether they bury themselves further or give people a reason to play regularly and make money doing it.

BattleMonkey · Oct 17, 2012

None of the unlocks are that bad, really it's just the limits and restrictions being put on warzone usage that sucks. It's what is going to have the most demand for a permanent unlock option. People can get pvp play for free in many other places, why be so restrictive here? The meat of the game since it launched was it's pve story content so they have to hope that draws in people and make money off cosmetic crap.

Flashpoints 3 a week is more than enough for a person for leveling and if a person cares at all about end game flashpoint and raid running, they would likely be subbing to the game. And limits on space missions? Doubt anyone really cares about that.

They should do like DCUO where if you spent money at any time that your restrictions were lessened.

Wallach said:
I can't think of any major F2P game where the model did not allow you to purchase content rights on a permanent basis. There is usually a split between character-based and account-based unlocks, but I have never seen a model try this micro-subscription shit before.

Champions Online never let players unlock character creation, you had to sub to be allowed to make your own characters fully, otherwise you had to choose between several premade character classes. Even buying power and creation options, never gave you the games full class customization functionality, also why they locked out free players from the full pvp experience as well. Theres always been in various F2P mmo style games restricitons that couldn't be permanent unlocks. EA shouldn't do this though, they have a game that can bring in big numbers of players with potential money to toss into the game, they should be more lenient on some things.

Anoregon · Oct 17, 2012

Pretty much feel the exact same way as Tim.

As for the pricing question, Tan: They could make it cost literally (heh) hundreds of dollars to unlock every aspect of the game, the way DDO does, but just have it structured in a way that gives you control over the content you choose to buy. Individual warzone and flashpoint unlocks come to mind, for instance. Or for flashpoints, perhaps bundles of 2-3 at maybe 15-20 bucks. People might not like the idea of a sub, but will pay $15 a month or more on content they feel like the *own* rather than rent.

BattleMonkey · Oct 17, 2012

They should do a permanent WZ unlock for like $15-20 and just keep stuff like ranked play matches a subscriber/weekly pass based thing only.

StudioTan · Oct 17, 2012

CzarTim said:
Two months of sub is more than they are getting from me now. That's the price of many multiplayer focused games (ala War of the Roses), they should count themselves lucky that they can get anything more out of me considering I was a launch CE buyer and subbed for 6 months. Because, let me tell you how this goes: I resub for one month to get my shitty coins because I'm a sucker, and then I only log in once-in-a-blue-moon for a match or two. If they release that mini-expansion, then I'll buy that too to continue my story. Besides that, cosmetic items are the only way to get money out of me. And I have a feeling there will be a lot like me too -- maybe for PVE rather than PVP, but that same principle. The F2P sub they plan to offer is there for people who are still subbing now. The people here for the community. They might get a few new subs after launching, but those will fade with time as well.

I know they won't charge that little, but the fact that EA created a multi-hundred-million dollar product that is economically infeasible is hardly the consumer's fault. Making it too much of a hassle to play without a sub will just make me do what I am already doing: not play. Like it or not, hats are the answer. Planetside 2 is betting the house on this fact. If I have a reason to login regularly (and not, let's say, feel pressure about letting my sub go to waste) then I will have a reason to want to make my character look cool. If there wasn't a money problem, they wouldn't be taking such drastic measures to attract new and old players alike, so it just comes down to whether they bury themselves further or give people a reason to play regularly and make money doing it.

Your post seems to support their F2P model rather than oppose it. If you're only logging in once in a blue moon to PVP then the free option already offers that.

The cumulative costs of the weekly passes for specific activities will almost certainly be less than the cost of a sub. So if get the urge to PVP then you get the weekly PVP pass for $2-$3 and PVP all you want for the week. Same if you only want to run an Op once just to check it out.

Makeb comes out and it costs $10 bucks you grab that. New content like that that has a beginning and end will most likely be permanently unlocked. It's the repeatable content that provides end game rewards that they are locking out without continued payment.

All these are small charges that equal much less than a sub but you still get to play from time to time and you don't have to carry a sub as you would have to now. If you're playing the game so much that all this gets expensive well then the $15 sub is obviously the better deal. Unless all you do is PVP and it ends up costing you something like $8/month.

Yes, I understand what you're saying because they're getting nothing from you now and you figure if you give them 20 bucks one time they're getting more from you than they would have otherwise so it's seems logical to you but it's not a sustainable business model. This is a game that is going to be around for years and you can't just think about how much someone is going to pay you in 2012, you have to think about how you're going to be making money to sustain the game in 2014 and beyond. There are simply not enough people who are going to give them 20 bucks one time and have it be enough to finance new PVP content for the next few years.

The point is they're providing a crap load of content for the F2P player, to say their being greedy because you want access to everything for small initial fees is unfair IMO. We don't even know definitively that there won't be any way to earn coins in game, and if there isn't now that their won't be in the future.

Anoregon · Oct 17, 2012

You seem to be underestimating the effect the "pay to own" approach can have on people's attitudes towards MMO-style games. I keep bringing up DDO just because it's the game I have the most experience with that has made the succesfful transition to a F2P/premium (non-sub purchases)/Sub model, but in that game it isn't uncommon for the premium players, in this case anyone who has spent any money on the game, to end up spending more on the game in a year than someone who maintains a sub for a year.

Many people just hate the idea of a sub because they feel like they are forced to put X amount of time into something within a month in order to get what they payed for, when maybe the only want to play the game for half of X in a month. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of former SWTOR players fall into a similar group. The kind of people who would rather spend $15-20 or more a month, averaged across a year, on permanent unlocks of content and features that are all part of a sub is almost definitely not an insignificant proportion and it doesn't make sense for EA to leave that style of player no option.

That's why I don't really get the model EA is trying here. Obviously different things work for different games, but I would imagine specific examples of what works and what doesn't work within the industry and genre would have carried some weight when they were planning this transition.

BattleMonkey · Oct 17, 2012

Anoregon said:
You seem to be underestimating the effect the "pay to own" approach can have on people's attitudes towards MMO-style games. I keep bringing up DDO just because it's the game I have the most experience with that has made the succesfful transition to a F2P/premium (non-sub purchases)/Sub model, but in that game it isn't uncommon for the premium players, in this case anyone who has spent any money on the game, to end up spending more on the game in a year than someone who maintains a sub for a year.

Many people just hate the idea of a sub because they feel like they are forced to put X amount of time into something within a month in order to get what they payed for, when maybe the only want to play the game for half of X in a month. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of former SWTOR players fall into a similar group. The kind of people who would rather spend $15-20 or more a month, averaged across a year, on permanent unlocks of content and features that are all part of a sub is almost definitely not an insignificant proportion and it doesn't make sense for EA to leave that style of player no option.

That's why I don't really get the model EA is trying here. Obviously different things work for different games, but I would imagine specific examples of what works and what doesn't work within the industry and genre would have carried some weight when they were planning this transition.

Problem is that there is very few instances of F2P games really failing. Pretty much most of them have achieved success for that specific game and increased revenue. Even the F2P systems that seem exploitive, and pay 2 win often show success that there really is no guide of the right way to do it. Games suddenly had booms of more players, new game content, and even in many cases suddenly hiring new employees to support said game. The only guide they have to work on is what they think they can make money off of generally. Just because you might like DDO's system, doesnt mean it's the right way, as oher games are doing fine with their own versions of F2P. Age of Conan is one of the worst F2P set ups I've seen as it locks so much away behind pay walls, it truly just feels like a demo yet that made a successful transition.

I don't see TOR having problems making it since they are giving the games major feature away to all players, and that is the full 8 class story leveling experiences. I dont see the limitations on warzones harming them that much truly outside of a smaller segment of the population, as number of folks who pvp in MMOs is always just a fraction of the overall playerbase. They hopefully with the backlash though eventually rethink it and offer a permanent unlock for pvp since it shouldn't hurt them to offer that option, as again it's only a portion of the player base. And they want to try and revitalize world pvp with Illum relaunch next year, which I don't imagine them locking out players.

Draxal · Oct 17, 2012

I honestly think the exact pricing of this stuff is going to be in flux, and easily changable so I'm not to worried about anything.

My only problem is withholding people's Cartel Coins, that's just going to earn them bad will (and I think that might be just a PR snafu ... there seems to be an additional bonus coins being given at the launch of f2p, maybe 's its just witholding those which makes a lot more sense).

BattleMonkey · Oct 17, 2012

Draxal said:
I honestly think the exact pricing of this stuff is going to be in flux, and easily changable so I'm not to worried about anything.

My only problem is withholding people's Cartel Coins, that's just going to earn them bad will (and I think that might be just a PR snafu ... there seems to be an additional bonus coins being given at the launch of f2p, maybe 's its just witholding those which makes a lot more sense).

Yea most of my guild who planned to come back are doing so for the PVE and story, few touch the pvp portion but they were all expecting those cartel coins. That's going to be the biggest sore spot for folks.

Won · Oct 17, 2012

Yeah, even with a GW2 like F2P I wouldn't consider coming back, if that's how they want to do business with their customers under the F2P model in the future.
"Reward loyalty"....sure

HBroward · Oct 17, 2012

Honestly, I'm glad F2P are limited to 3 games a week. Can you imagine the bitching from pvpers if they had allowed F2P to pvp limitlessly(or close to it), with only blue(read Recruit MK-2) gear? It would have unbalanced things even more. And I don't understand the people who expected to pay $20-40 for a permanent unlock, when the game could potentially be running for 5 more years or more. That just does't make sense. If you could buy access permanently to everything for around 6 months worth of subs, that just wouldn't be sustainable long term for EA. I don't know, we still need to see the costs of everything to really judge this in my opinion.

Draxal said:
My only problem is withholding people's Cartel Coins, that's just going to earn them bad will (and I think that might be just a PR snafu ... there seems to be an additional bonus coins being given at the launch of f2p, maybe 's its just witholding those which makes a lot more sense).

Yeah, I believe that is just a misunderstanding as well, I'm surprised they haven't cleared it up already. It should just be the complimentary ones for being subscribed at the launch of F2P. I thought they had spelled that out a long time ago.

CzarTim · Oct 17, 2012

StudioTan said:
Yes, I understand what you're saying because they're getting nothing from you now and you figure if you give them 20 bucks one time they're getting more from you than they would have otherwise so it's seems logical to you but it's not a sustainable business model. This is a game that is going to be around for years and you can't just think about how much someone is going to pay you in 2012, you have to think about how you're going to be making money to sustain the game in 2014 and beyond. There are simply not enough people who are going to give them 20 bucks one time and have it be enough to finance new PVP content for the next few years.

That's fair. Make it $20 bucks a year for unlimited WZ then. Or like BM said, only limit ranked matches and/or limit restrictions for previous subs.

The reason it's hard to speculate, is because we have no idea how they plan on charging for any leveling content. Whether that will be free, or a one-time fee, or maybe given to subs before everyone else. If F2P doesn't take off, then my assumption is that the amount and scope of the content will greatly lessen after the current pipeline dries out. I have no idea what to realistically expect from this dev team.

Support NeoGAF

Star Wars: The Old Republic |OT2| In a F2Play galaxy far, far away

Member

Member

Member

The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!

Member

Member

The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!

Member

Member

Member

The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!

Member

Member

Member

Member

The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!

Member

Member

Member

Member

The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!

Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?

The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!

Member

Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?

Member

Member

Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?

Member

Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?

Member

Member

Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?

Member

Member

The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!

Member

Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?

The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads