Planetside 2 - A critical look - Page 6

Bags · 2011-09-15, 10:48 PM

Separating F2P and P2P people is stupid. You want the freeloaders to play with the payers so they become jealous of their stylish apparel and hopefully become buyers and so the P2Pers have more people to play with.

Aractain · 2011-09-15, 10:54 PM

Exactly as Bags says, when a boring, free, dog skinned trooper sees the zebra skin or the special Fluttershy skin on his friends or empiremates he wont be able to control his desire to join the club. He wont feel bad about his transactions either, all he will remember is the adoration from the players around him with tells like "RandomNC007 says: nice skin dude" and "LICKFUR says: WUUFF!!".

Graywolves · 2011-09-16, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Bags

Separating F2P and P2P people is stupid. You want the freeloaders to play with the payers so they become jealous of their stylish apparel and hopefully become buyers and so the P2Pers have more people to play with.

Exactly, free to play helps keep the populations high. It's just a matter of SOE making it seem worth purchase even if F2P accounts progress slower than P2P.

Draep · 2011-09-16, 07:57 AM

I just want the most people to kill on the other faction and the most people to recruit on my own faction. Whichever way this is done is fine with me. As for shitting on an F2P model, I'm sure the people working on the game have more experience and market research than any of us to be able to determine if this is a good idea.

cellinaire · 2011-09-18, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by Bags

Separating F2P and P2P people is stupid. You want the freeloaders to play with the payers so they become jealous of their stylish apparel and hopefully become buyers and so the P2Pers have more people to play with.

Ok then. But I didn't say I want EQ2's model....well I still think with some extra rectification/modification with this business model, it could be worth a try. Who knows?
(Don't get me wrong. Cause' I'm more of the Sub guy myself

)

BTW, you guys are a bit exaggerating the difference between F2P and P2P here.
Let's just look at the EQ2's case as an example. Do players in original servers look like beggars compared to some wealthy F2P server players? Do F2P players look a lot more flamboyant or princely? Or, Do player-owned homes in the original servers look like a ditch compared to F2p player-owned homes in the end? Of course it'll take a lot more time for subscription-gamers to decorate their houses in luxurious ways or equip themselves with some glittering armors, but the difference here won't be that serious.

Traak · 2011-09-18, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by Draep

I just want the most people to kill on the other faction and the most people to recruit on my own faction. Whichever way this is done is fine with me. As for shitting on an F2P model, I'm sure the people working on the game have more experience and market research than any of us to be able to determine if this is a good idea.

Did their "market research" show the plummet in paying customers as a result of the hoardes of free-account cheaters crashing over the server like a tidal wave of vomit?

IceyCold · 2011-09-18, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Traak

Did their "market research" show the plummet in paying customers as a result of the hoardes of free-account cheaters crashing over the server like a tidal wave of vomit?

If they fail to have proper cheat detection and control then even a sub model would not save Planetside2.

FIREk · 2011-09-18, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by IceyCold

If they fail to have proper cheat detection and control then even a sub model would not save Planetside2.

Sadly, that is true. As far as I've heard, the best cheats (the ones you pay for) are actually more expensive than a typical sub ($20 per month). This means that a "dedicated cheater" isn't too detracted by having to spend money (for instance, on a new account's subscription, once he gets caught).

**Malorn** · 2011-09-18, 07:55 PM

That blogger was clearly molested by UO when he was younger and rocks in a corner crying himself to sleep when he's not on his personal quest to stop the spread of MMOs.

FIREk · 2011-09-19, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

That blogger was clearly molested by UO when he was younger and rocks in a corner crying himself to sleep when he's not on his personal quest to stop the spread of MMOs.

I have played UO on an RP-heavy freeshard for 5 years, and it is the best MMOGPG (actually, the only MMORPG) ever. Your argument is therefore invalid. :P

**Malorn** · 2011-09-19, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by FIREk

I have played UO on an RP-heavy freeshard for 5 years, and it is the best MMOGPG (actually, the only MMORPG) ever. Your argument is therefore invalid. :P

I wasn't saying anything negative about UO, only that the blogger was traumatized by it. Probably couldn't handle the idea of more than one person playing a game.

2coolforu · 2011-09-19, 07:14 AM

Can you really expect a 'Critical' look from a blog called 'I hate MMO's', it was obviously going to be horribly biased and an uninteresting crybaby view.

FIREk · 2011-09-19, 07:38 AM

English may not be the OP's native language. The word may mean "criticizing" rather than "critique", like it does in Polish, for instance. And criticizing PS2 this blog's native attention whore does, indeed.

I Hate MMORPGs · 2011-09-19, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I wasn't saying anything negative about UO, only that the blogger was traumatized by it. Probably couldn't handle the idea of more than one person playing a game.

Ultima Online pre UO:R was the greatest MMORPG in the history of man. My issue is that games like PS2 and every other subsequent MMORPG or MMO(random letters) fails to address that a game needs to have consequences or it isn't exciting.

Being shot to death only to respawn immediately with all your stuff is carebear to the max. How am I as a player supposed to get amped up about a kill or be killed environment when being killed has no consequence other than some minor time-sink.

2coolforu · 2011-09-19, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by I Hate MMORPGs

Ultima Online pre UO:R was the greatest MMORPG in the history of man. My issue is that games like PS2 and every other subsequent MMORPG or MMO(random letters) fails to address that a game needs to have consequences or it isn't exciting.

Being shot to death only to respawn immediately with all your stuff is carebear to the max. How am I as a player supposed to get amped up about a kill or be killed environment when being killed has no consequence other than some minor time-sink.

What's the consequence of losing a game of Starcraft? What the hell is the consequence of losing a game of C&C or CoD, there is zero consequence other than personal pride. You play for the feeling that you've outskilled someone, outsmarted someone or just plain worked together as a team with someone. That's what made me play Planetside.

Inevitably there are no real consequences in any game, what happens if you lose a ship in EVE, it's just time you've sank into a game after all. What happens if you die on WoW, it's just time you've sank into the game to get cash to repair your gear after all. Your argument is null and void, there are literally no consequences to anything in a game other than your own time being wasted and the only benefit is you get fun out of it, you argument is one from personal taste which is only relevant to your point of view and not a critique of the game itself. If you don't like playing a game where if you die you lose everything and have to restart then only play that type of game, if you are an FPS player don't hate RTS games because they aren't about playing solo.

In terms of consequences the idea is you sink your resources into making a personalized tank, if you lose that tank then the resources go up with it. That's equal consequence to losing your drake in EVE.