Making this work

[NlightN]

Originally Posted by SavageB

Maybe it's harder for some of you to afford 15 a month( not saying you Newsith), but as I stated previous, if you want a AAA game then the money has to be there from the fanbase as the game goes on. Smed stated that they will layout a three year plan for us to review and to encourage and give feedback on what we think will be right or wrong, where will that money come from??? Certainly not from a F2P game thats for sure, certainly not from a 4.99/ month sub fee either. This is a business, this is also something that hasnt really been done to this scale ever in the FPS world, so much opportunity and Im glad and happy that it is Planetside 2 breaking out and Im more than happy to chip in my 15/ month and watch this in excitment for the future.

Sure paying a fifteen dollar a month sub isn't an issue to me nor you as us being more of the dedicated players, but we don't represent the majority or what the average player would be willing to pay.


It would be pretty thick-headed for SOE to charge a triple A premium for a non-rpg game, in today's market, with all the big named games from big named companies competing for players standard monthly subs. And you know most players aren't willing to dish out two AAA premium subs. They might have been able to get away with it back in 03, which didn't even have half the number of subscriber based games then that we do now, and even then, PS wasn't nearly as successful as it could have been as some would argue, partly because of that.


At my suggested $4.99/month subscription fee, I guarantee you that the number of subs would be close to double what those would be with a standard premium so your issue about it not being enough to pay the bills is mute. And with an aesthetic driven micro-trans store, ideally that would surpass what they would bring in from a full premium sub model from 'niche' players like us alone.


I really hope, but am really doubtful that SOE is thinking along the same lines as you. Thats the reason I started this thread though, in the case that they might even be pondering the idea and showing from the players responses just how naive that would be, possibly jeopardizing the success of this game.

[Malorn]

Lots of reasons to have F2P elements, especially if they plan on a console release. Young gamers don't always have a salary or jobs and they get games as gifts. Parents usually aren't willing to shell out subscriptions for their kids to play a game so the buy-once, play forever is a good model for them. You'll get more players in the game. More players keep the game alive and net more players, some of whom will pay and overall they'll get more revenue and we'll benefit from a high pop game.

[NlightN]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Lots of reasons to have F2P elements, especially if they plan on a console release. Young gamers don't always have a salary or jobs and they get games as gifts. Parents usually aren't willing to shell out subscriptions for their kids to play a game so the buy-once, play forever is a good model for them. You'll get more players in the game. More players keep the game alive and net more players, some of whom will pay and overall they'll get more revenue and we'll benefit from a high pop game.

I don't think a pure box copy only will be enough to sustain PS2 alone, their talking multiple servers, I'm guessing around seven or eight just at release time so there needs to be some form of 'steady' cash flow. I don't see a primarily F2P model working as most players wouldn't take part in the micro store unless there was some additional power to gain, which is a big no no in PS2.


B2P, as some of you suggested could work though. Maybe at a price of 10 hours per US dollar, but then when you get up to about ten, start having the real value come in, and at fifteen bucks which would be equivalent to a monthly sub should give you one month of unlimited game time.

[Aractain]

Buying minuets is even worse than subs for making people feel like they are on the clock.

That was one of APB's dumbest ideas.

The mordern audiance is very used to box price + DLC (look at CoD). Thats roughly the equivolent of a box price and new content packs and cosmetic options.

Considering Tribes ascend and Firefall are both free to play and both look good enough that PS2 is still only left with scale as its sole advantage over others. Are people going to put down 5, 10 or 15 a month for JUST scale?

I doubt it. A normal sub will kill the game again imo.

[NlightN]

Originally Posted by Aractain

Buying minuets is even worse than subs for making people feel like they are on the clock.

That was one of APB's dumbest ideas.

How so? The only real difference to that of a sub (going by my example) would be that the hardcore players would be buying the unlimited monthly card/pack, while the casual player, weekend warrior or whatever, would purchase the dollar increments buying himself just enough time to last through the weekend.

Originally Posted by Aractain

The mordern audiance is very used to box price + DLC (look at CoD). Thats roughly the equivolent of a box price and new content packs and cosmetic options.

Considering Tribes ascend and Firefall are both free to play and both look good enough that PS2 is still only left with scale as its sole advantage over others. Are people going to put down 5, 10 or 15 a month for JUST scale?

I doubt it. A normal sub will kill the game again imo.

Five bucks for massive warfare on PS2s scale, yeah I'm sure players will find that reasonable, but anything more than that is taking a big chance, being that alot of players are already paying the fifteen dollar prime for WoW, WaR, or EvE or whatever.

[Malorn]

I know it seems counter-intuitive, but free play actually brings in more revenue because not every player plays for free. Some will, but others who are used to a subscription and want the extra perks will pay and sustain the game. Players who start free to play don't always stay that way and may start paying a sub or use the store, etc. The main reason f2p does this is because it makes the game more alive by bringing in more bodies. MMOs live and die with their playerbases. F2P gives a huge playerbase, if even 1/3 of those players pay it can still be more than a sub-only with much smaller player base. But the smaller playerbase can easily turn into a dying game while the f2p model keeps the game healthy and growing.

See this video for more details about why its good and where it can go wrong:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...rotransactions

[MasterChief096]

Personally I think 5 or 10 dollars a month would draw in double the amount of subscribers as would a 15 dollar subscription.

Add in being able to purchase 40 hours for 15 dollars or something and now all the one-hour-a-day and weekend warriors will be happy. (Not everyone plays MMOs, especially FPSes, enough to justify a monthly subscription, regardless of how cheap it might be).

Include free-to-play but limited, and you tempt people with one of the two offers above, most will probably upgrade at some point in time.

Have the micro-transaction shop and you get money from everyone.

Make the box 40-60 dollars, and bam, instant revenue.

Unless the game totally fails at launch the model above would work just fine to sustain it and continue development IMO.

[Malorn]

If they can truly solve the hacking issues (lol) then not having a box cost would bring in a lot more players. Lots of people willing to try something that they don't have to pay for. Then once they try it they love it and then start paying later.

[NlightN]

Originally Posted by Malorn

If they can truly solve the hacking issues (lol) then not having a box cost would bring in a lot more players. Lots of people willing to try something that they don't have to pay for. Then once they try it they love it and then start paying later.

Or how about a two week free trial instead, with limited character advancement, maybe one MA rifle to use, some novice medic abilities to try out or whatever, allowing players to get a taste of the progression that will be the staple of PS2. Don't take away the bread and butter boxed copy though - that's going to be the baseline for bringing in revenue. A F2P based model just doesn't seem sufficient enough to meet the ambitious goals the devs are trying to reach with this game.

[Malorn]

F2P is a business model, it isn't a free trial where you play the role of a drug dealer and say "first one's free, but then you have to pay!" - it completely bypasses the whole point of F2P. You have players, particularly younger ones who cannot pay, don't have credit cards, etc. They'll likely turn into paying customers later. Additionally, you also have people that might take a break from the game. If it's F2P you have plenty of encouragement for them to come back and play again and then start paying again after that.

Point is they are contributing to the game and the people are what makes MMOs work. Without people, the game is boring. It's a positive feedback loop. If you have players, its easier to get more players. The opposite is also true...a dying game only accelerates its decay. If there's little or nothing going on in the game nobody is going ot play it. Its even more true for Planetside which is entirely player-driven. There's no NPCs you can go muck with if you hit a lull.

If you already allow people to play for free for a short time, why not extend it? Why not make them first class citizens? There are ways to make money off of that (see the video I linked above). If you'r ewilling to pay for people to play a free trial why not let them play the whole time?

Seriously watch that video...it explains it a lot better than I can here in text.

[Raymac]

Malorn is right. MMO's with a free-to-play aspect are simply a reality of the business world today. And frankly, in a game like PS2 that is 100% PvP, if you want to attract AND sustain the numbers of players needed for the scale, in today's economy, it will need a free-to-play aspect. What we will likely see is what is going on in many many other games which is a "premium subscription" option combined with a "free-to-play" option.

[NlightN]

Stop with the "younger players can't play cause of CC req" argument. What's the primary demograph for WoW?....players under the age of eighteen. And we know how horrible that game is doing . If the game is engaging and immersive enough, players will get a hold of someone with a credit card to cover them. Then with a sub that's less than half the standard, that person will be alot more inclined to pay as well.


Again, a F2P model might work for standard MMOs, but ppl have a whole different opinion on what they consider justifiable in paying for an FPS, even a heavily suped up one like PS2. I imagine the number of premium subs would be much less than they'd be in those other F2P + sub models resulting in a heavy loss in revenue comparatively.

[exLupo]

I'm going to back Malorn up on this one. A freemium model, as stated above, will be welcoming to both the normal western "pay for the box" FPS crowd as well as the new breed of persistent growth FPS player who is accustomed to the cash shop. Erring on the side of income fairness, the cash shop won't be pay2win but it's a little (imo the best) of both worlds to attract both markets.

The only possible hitch is ingrained prejudice. There's not much more to be said other than that western gamers have this strong and irrational bias against freemium titles. There is a wealth of evidence against all of the complaints that people bring against the genre and very little to back up the bad sides out of what, anymore, amount to outliers or specific genres.

Western gamers need to get over their knee-jerk "if it's free, it's not for me" bias. I have yet to see anyone successfully argue that idea that free play ruins games. The closest I've seen is people arguing it, getting shot down by the facts and then they stick their fingers in their ears.

With the growing popularity with of freemium titles (new and retrofit), the western buying power is growing more and more welcoming of the model. There's already a whole generation of gamer that hasn't gamed through the horror of EQ1's failed pay2win experiment. Those gamers who are blindly against the concept due to old fears will convert or die off as the years roll on. Hopefully their feelings won't hurt PS2's player numbers.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Malorn

See this video for more details about why its good and where it can go wrong:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...rotransactions

I did watch this video and it does bring up good points. Being an MMOFPS there will be nothing to do if there aren't other players around to shoot. A model like this can almost guarantee healthy population numbers as long as they properly advertise the game this time. It's far less of a mental block against dropping "$50 for a game that might kick ass" than to know you have to spend "$50 and then an additional $5-13 a month for a game that might suck." The former shows optimism the latter pessimism.

Considering I saw TV commercials for the new CoD and then it went to have 2.6 million people playing on the first day - coincidence between advertising and population? I think not. $650 mil in 5 days return on investment and risk of advertising justified? I think so.

I don't necessarily want to bring up the fact that these are console games but I sort of do considering the mixed signals the guys gave regarding if this will be available on PS3. Console gamers are used to buying a game once and playing it as long as they want. If it indeed out for PS3 and they choose not to use proper and widespread advertising that will make people optimistic that the game might kick ass and it's worth trying it out then it will be a shame.

[Hamma]

Quite a bit of potential with F2P for sure if they can get it right.