Would you RATHER they charge for the game (one time fee)?

Sabin · 2012-06-25, 12:58 PM

Sorry. Please disregard my previous thread. I would like to know how many people would actually RATHER pay for the game to dissuade hacking.

It's an odd thing when people RATHER give money than take something for free. But I would much rather have it that way and just put a big deterrent to hackers from the start. I believe this is the easiest, and most effective way from the get-go.

I am making this a poll because I find it interesting and relevant. Please give your side of the argument - I would like to see what you all think.

EDIT:
Some people have put out the idea that you pay an initial payment ($20 or so), but you get that back in cash to use for in-game items. I think this is a brilliant idea, and I'd further it by saying that these items you purchase with it should be non-tradeable. Anyone banned will lose that item.

Rago · 2012-06-25, 01:01 PM

Well i think MMOS are different from regular Multiplayer Games.

Maybe you can pay for a Add on in the Futuer, were you run in Caves and Grab Maelstorms :P

No, Actually im Happy with the F2P, its a grant for More Players.

Kyros · 2012-06-25, 01:02 PM

Would I pay money for PS2 if it had a one time fee? Most definately.
Would I rather pay money for PS2 if it had a one time fee? No. Why? Because I want to spend all that money in the cash shop and I don't have much of it.

Also hackers are going to be in any game whether it costs money or not. I trust the devs will take care of them.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-06-25, 01:02 PM

I dont know if paying fir a game can stop hackers. I watched a vid from bf3 where this dude killed everyone in game repeatedly with an ammo box. Just hope soe is pulling iut all the stops to stop hacking.

Sabin · 2012-06-25, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Rago

Well i think MMOS are different from regular Multiplayer Games.

Maybe you can pay for a Add on in the Futuer, were you run in Caves and Grab Maelstorms :P

No, Actually im Happy with the F2P, its a grant for More Players.

I rather it be the other way around. Add-ons be free. In fact, I think it being a MMOS makes the initial purchase argument stronger. In normal multiplayer games, you get banned from the individual servers usually (VAC gets cracked all the time). In MMOS, you get banned from the entire world. You have no where else to play (except unofficial servers if they make those some day - but who cares about that? They won't affect you anymore.)

basti · 2012-06-25, 01:05 PM

Paying or not Paying doesnt stop hackers, it just keeps the massive script kiddy crowd at bay. Proper working AntiCheat does the same, and still lets people who play legit play without having to spend cash first (and therefore give the game a whole lot more players).

ThermalReaper · 2012-06-25, 01:05 PM

No. F2p means more players imo.

Sabin · 2012-06-25, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I dont know if paying fir a game can stop hackers. I watched a vid from bf3 where this dude killed everyone in game repeatedly with an ammo box. Just hope soe is pulling iut all the stops to stop hacking.

Look at my post above. In BF3 admins can ban you - but you are only banned from the server. PB is useless for the most part in those cases.

Now, if someone hacks in PS2 and gets banned, they will have to purchase (or obtain in some way) another copy of the game. Anti-hack software + dev's banning hackers + paying for the game AGAIN once you are banned is the absolute best strategy I can think of.

When you take the initial payment out of the equation, they will just find a way to change their hardware/whatever ID's, and make a new account. I doubt alot of people will be willing to keep purchasing copies of the game.

lMABl · 2012-06-25, 01:09 PM

Would prefer a one time fee, but there is going to be more players with a F2P format which is a good thing especially for a game like PS2. Also with microtransactions I'm more than likely going to spend much more than if I was just to purchase the game. But I have no problem with that.

Sabin · 2012-06-25, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by basti

Paying or not Paying doesnt stop hackers, it just keeps the massive script kiddy crowd at bay. Proper working AntiCheat does the same, and still lets people who play legit play without having to spend cash first (and therefore give the game a whole lot more players).

What's more likely to break a game? The massive script-kiddy crowd - or hackers who decide it's worth it to purchase multiple copies of the game?

Goku · 2012-06-25, 01:12 PM

I want to keep the game F2P. Allows far more people access to the game than a box fee does. F2P will make this game never be a ghost town like PS1 is today. More people playing = more money for SOE.

Sabin · 2012-06-25, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by lMABl

Would prefer a one time fee, but there is going to be more players with a F2P format which is a good thing especially for a game like PS2. Also with microtransactions I'm more than likely going to spend much more than if I was just to purchase the game. But I have no problem with that.

I just find it hard to believe that even $40 would break the bank so much.

PS1 charged for the game AND a monthly perscription, and it had more than enough players in it's day. A one time charge will not only equal that, but surpass it exponentially because you're done paying after that (unless you want to).

Raymac · 2012-06-25, 01:14 PM

One time last year, I was on and there were less than 20 NC online. It was so depressing. Players are the lifeblood of Planetside more than nearly any other game out there. Keeping the entry level as free essentially guarantees that there will always be enough players.

Sabin · 2012-06-25, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Goku

I want to keep the game F2P. Allows far more people access to the game than a box fee does. F2P will make this game never be a ghost town like PS1 is today. More people playing = more money for SOE.

PS1 is a monthly charged game. That is more of a reason than an initial charge. I do not believe a initial fee would stop anything. If PS1, Counter-Strike, Starcraft, etc, etc. could be some of the most popular PC games of all time, and charge an initial fee (PS1 had the monthly and was busy in it's day), then PS2 will be fine.

If people can afford computers to play PS2, you can afford a small initial fee.

Sabin · 2012-06-25, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

One time last year, I was on and there were less than 20 NC online. It was so depressing. Players are the lifeblood of Planetside more than nearly any other game out there. Keeping the entry level as free essentially guarantees that there will always be enough players.

It's like that because of the month fee. Also, consider this. In 10 years, the price of the game will lower to an insignificant price. Even @ $5-$10, it'd take persistent hackers to keep purchasing them.

View Poll Results: Would you RATHER they charge for the game (one time fee)?
Yes	160	43.24%
No	210	56.76%
Voters: 370. You may not vote on this poll