"Premium Features" Speculation! - Page 3

ThGlump · 2012-01-02, 05:00 PM

Another thing that could be easier for premium is switching class. We dont know if there is some timer, but it could be something like 20 min between switch for free, with purchasable upgrades, ending with no limit in premium. No effect on gameplay, but give premium players more freedom.

Sifer2 · 2012-01-02, 05:16 PM

I said it already but I think you will see Free players restricted from using certain things. Like MAX armor or Heavy Tanks/Aircraft. It would be terrible if free griefers were allowed behind the wheel of a Galaxy after all just so they could crash you all into the ground :P

They may even go as far as to limit your inventory. Like free players only get one weapon where as subscribers can carry two and a pistol. It might seem extreme but they will go as far as they need to get your money. They only want it free enough to make you try it since its not a charity.

This is why honestly I would be happier if they had went with a buy to play type model. Where the base game does cost money. Then they wouldn't need to force so many microtransactions on the playerbase an we would have a more even playing field. But at this point it sounds like they are commited to doing the lame F2P route and are busy deciding how to sabotage free players enough to get them paying.

SKYeXile · 2012-01-02, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Sifer2

I said it already but I think you will see Free players restricted from using certain things. Like MAX armor or Heavy Tanks/Aircraft. It would be terrible if free griefers were allowed behind the wheel of a Galaxy after all just so they could crash you all into the ground :P

They may even go as far as to limit your inventory. Like free players only get one weapon where as subscribers can carry two and a pistol. It might seem extreme but they will go as far as they need to get your money. They only want it free enough to make you try it since its not a charity.

This is why honestly I would be happier if they had went with a buy to play type model. Where the base game does cost money. Then they wouldn't need to force so many microtransactions on the playerbase an we would have a more even playing field. But at this point it sounds like they are commited to doing the lame F2P route and are busy deciding how to sabotage free players enough to get them paying.

PS2 wont be able to support itself longterm with just a box price, it needs ongoing revenue.

Bittermen · 2012-01-02, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

PS2 wont be able to support itself longterm with just a box price, it needs ongoing revenue.

And f2p opens the the game up to a much wider audience.

Whocares if they buncha nooblets, CANNON FODDER ANYONE?

EASyEightyEight · 2012-01-02, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by Nobel

I really dont like the sound of a Premium level subscription and Free level play to have any "barriers" to anything that you can do in game. Convenience is what ill pay for. I also dont want to be able to pay to win.

What I want, and WOULD pay for in a Premium subscription is the following:

Ability to train multiple skills at once. (MOST IMPORTANT)
-Or faster skill training at least.
Special Premium Cosmetic customization
Station Cash Stipend
Early Access to new Station Store Content
Station Store "Package"
-Exclusive Commander skills (Maybe? Preferably?)
-Outfit creation and leadership capabilities.
Access to Test Server
Forum Privleges
Expanded Customer Support

I too have to support this, with a few personal additions. Paying an optional subscription should bring primarily convenience and flare to the subscriber. Actual content should be for everyone. In some cases, "convenience" is actually time, where one pays money instead of time to train a skill, if only faster, not instantly.

Forcing an active subscription as a requirement to creating and leading outfits, and possibly to fully access all of the commander skills, is about the only in-game exclusive content I'll support. I agree that we don't need over 9000 outfits springing up over the delusions of one guy/kid thinking it'll become something huge, and forcing a sub first would reduce the numbers. Further, if WoW's guild perks are ANY indication, encouraging players to seek an outfit with bonuses works, and further strengthening their preferred method of play can only be a good thing. We WANT tank pilots to look for the most developed tank outfit in their chosen empire. That's just one example.

I also like the idea of premium only cosmetic options. Normally I'm against something like exclusivity in this regard, but I feel allowing subscribers access to custom armor pieces/decorations to show they're a loyalist/elite might be a fun choice they should be allowed to make, but they should always remember there is also a stigma attached. Freebies always seem to want everything the payers have, they just don't want to pay for it.

SKYeXile · 2012-01-02, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Bittermen

And f2p opens the the game up to a much wider audience.

Whocares if they buncha nooblets, CANNON FODDER ANYONE?

exactly.

Quantumplation · 2012-01-02, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Sifer2

This is why honestly I would be happier if they had went with a buy to play type model. Where the base game does cost money. Then they wouldn't need to force so many microtransactions on the playerbase an we would have a more even playing field. But at this point it sounds like they are commited to doing the lame F2P route and are busy deciding how to sabotage free players enough to get them paying.

I think the key subtlety that you're not addressing behind the F2P model is this:

Planetside 1 was a great game while it had players. Any decrease in player-base (within reason) resulted in a decrease in fun, and thereby a further decrease in playerbase. By making the game free to play, the idea isn't to "try and hook the new player and then force them to pay", but to constantly make sure that the game is fun for those who do pay. In essence, they're turning a liability (someone who's not paying them) into an asset (someone who, by their mere presence, makes the game more fun) that enriches the experience for their paying customer base. This is a genius move, and it's a fundamental shift in the industry paradigm called the economy of free. I'm sure SOE has recognized that imposing limits that are too restricting on the free player isn't going to "get them to pay" (the people who are going to pay are going to pay anyway, to some extent), but more than likely ruin the experience and drive them away, thus decreasing the game play experience of those who do pay.

So yes, there's going to be some restrictions on the free players, simply to make paying worth something for those who are willing to play, but I think SOE would be, quite frankly, stupid to overstep that boundary and not take advantage of the amazing property of the format of the Planetside games that allows them to give away something free to make the rest of their product more marketable.

ThGlump · 2012-01-02, 06:04 PM

Yea tons of players to shoot. But why players were leaving ps1? Because there was too few ppl? That was a secondary reason as many left before so rest then left due low pop. And why they start leaving? It was soe fault. Lack of/bad updates, and ignoring hackers drove them away. They could change first (if they got enough money from f2p), but that second wont change.
So yes ps2 could be full all the time (freebies), but there must be some paying players. Soe should take care of them first, give them enjoyable game, and when they are willing to pay, then provide them some freebie cannon fodder (enjoyable for them too, but they dont need everything for that). If you give everything for free, there wont be enough money to keep game alive.

Figment · 2012-01-02, 06:06 PM

My expectations are indeed along the lines of the DCUO system, with a couple things you see in World of Tanks ("Barracks/Garage", ie. increased locker space, multiple characters) and Battlefield Heroes ("Cosmetics", ie. camouflage, eye-patch, etc) and indeed the premium thing. Perhaps you can queue more skills to train and offline training may last longer as well: where others would have to login each day to select the next skill to train as Higby mentioned a while ago, you as a premium user could perhaps go on holiday for a few days?

Either way, I expressly do not expect nor want things from either World of Tanks or Battlefield heroes that can be considered pay-to-win: 'gold ammo', 'extra med kits', 'special temp buffs to your unit'. That sort of thing should be out of the question.

In addition, I would expect the resource system to be linked with this as well. Higby stated every player gets awarded a certain amount of resources by the empire for conquests and battle, as well as simply an additional allowance for how big the empire is at that time. In that sense, I expect the daily gain and perhaps the maximum on the resource pool per player to get some sort of multiplyer (like experience).

Note that this would have the consequence that free players would get to pull fewer vehicles a day, unless they conquer more. This would provide an extra incentive for these players to be on the offensive, rather than just farm. It would also provide some more depth in the choice of pulling a vehicle now or later (much like OS timers: use it now, or wait?).

In fact, if they make this strict enough, it could reduce the manpower requirement problem we've been debating before as gunner seats become interesting simply because you can't afford your own tank right then and there. However, the risk is this gets to be seen as 'pay to win' by freebee users when you get to have more frequent access to vehicles. This may become a tricky thing to balance, not just economically for the battlefield balance, but also for emotional balance between account types.

In World of Tanks you often hear things like "Premium Noobs" whenever someone uses a purchased tank (which may not be entirely accurate, since these players use premium tanks to gain extra credits, as they do not pay for a subscription that gets them extra credits per fight). However, the increase in skill training could be compared to World of Tanks speed of upgrading: premium gets more experience points (x1.5) and thus upgrades their tanks faster. In a sense it is a form of "pay to win over time" as you get a temporary upgraded time advantage, but it is not something you would directly notice in combat aside from someone using the upgraded equipment (which you obtain later as well).

LZachariah · 2012-01-02, 06:49 PM

Well, I don't think that anyone is arguing whether or not a Premium player would have an advantage, that's definitely the point. So "Pay to Win Over Time" is understandable, even expected. It would be insane for the Devs to say "your gameplay experience will be absolutely the same whether you subscribe or not." What they're working on (and what we're discussing) is what Premium features provide a worthwhile benefit while not making the Premium player more formidable on a moment-to-moment basis. A Premium player should not have inherently more hit points than a non-Premium player, but it is reasonable to say that their working toward extra-hit-point unlocks could perhaps be worth 1.5x or 2x as much, so they would reach it faster.

I think that most people on this thread have a good sense of what to expect, and what would be a good model.

~Zachariah

Sirisian · 2012-01-02, 07:39 PM

I want a subscription account to have a player of each faction with the same character name with the ability to train on each faction. I don't care if there is a switch timer, but the concept of creating 3 separate accounts to play all the factions seems lame.

Zulthus · 2012-01-02, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I want a subscription account to have a player of each faction with the same character name with the ability to train on each faction. I don't care if there is a switch timer, but the concept of creating 3 separate accounts to play all the factions seems lame.

Go to a different server. I like that they're making it 1 empire per server.

Sirisian · 2012-01-02, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Go to a different server. I like that they're making it 1 empire per server.

How about I just log into my other free account? Why would I play on a different server than my friends. That would be pointless. I had friends who played TR once in a while so we'd hunt each other down in the middle of fights. Good times. Or we'd team up on the same faction. The current system is really just an inconvenience if I have to create 3 accounts. The whole idea with selling convenience should be getting rid of these problems. It's something I'd pay for. I imagine I'm not alone.

Zulthus · 2012-01-02, 09:22 PM

Then log into another account if you wish... at least it slows down empire hoppers.

DeadlyButters · 2012-01-02, 09:25 PM

What you guys have got to remember about the f2p side of this game is that, if the f2p side is shit and limits your abilities in the game. Dont expect the servers to be full for more than a month or two because people will just leave. The thing about todays games market is that there is a MOTHERLOAD of other games that people could be playing other than PS2. If PS2 cant get people hooked (with the exception of veterans) through f2p methods then this game will just die i reckon and i dont want that to happen!!

ps I plan to play this game free until I can (hopefully) afford a subscription and this is the same situation i experienced with DCUO. I played for 2 weeks before I just gave up because of how much that game limited the experience (the money limit was a fucking joke).