Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Are we happy that its free to play? What about Buy to Play?

burdock2burdock2 CanberraPosts: 409Member
I myself would be happy to pay a subscription. Are people happy that it will be free to play or is that casting a pall on the shiny new game? What would you consider to be SOEs best "Free to play"model out of thier current stable of games?
«1345

Comments

  • Tyvolus4Tyvolus4 lincoln, NEPosts: 175Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by burdock2
    I myself would be happy to pay a subscription. Are people happy that it will be free to play or is that casting a pall on the shiny new game? What would you consider to be SOEs best "Free to play"model out of thier current stable of games?

     I have no problem paying $14.99/month for an MMO.  Sadly there isn't one out right now that is worth a sub, but plenty of solid F2P offerings.  that said, if the game is worth it, I am subbing, if not I will play F2P as long as it isn't a cluster like EQ2's F2P model.

  • giga1000giga1000 Federal Way, WAPosts: 98Member

    All SOE current games are F2P and future games will be F2P because that's how the market has shifted gamer's want to try a game before they buy into it and that's that. Even the PS4 games will be this way play first then buy the game.

    It is purely about have as many people try your game as possible and if its good they stick around which is win win for all gamers. No more pay 60 bucks then find out the game sucks ass because now its free and if you are hooked you sub.

    The great thing is because of this shift it is making all MMO company's invest is customer service and redo their company policy's so that its focused on keeping players and listening to feedback and actually talking points out to the players. Instead of we are doing it our way and F/U we are not listening to you period.

    Now SoE devs are actually talking to their players and together Dev + Players are building the games together through communication and Devs building tools into these new games that is allowing players to build and develop the games as well .

    it is a pretty exciting time for MMO's because the genre is changing in a good way IMO.

  • Iceman8235Iceman8235 Bordentown, NJPosts: 194Member Uncommon
    I think F2P will work fine for EQ next.  It'll help keep the servers full longer.  Having a stable income, if I enjoy the game I'll most likely sub to it if there are time saving bonuses involved in subbing.
  • MendelMendel Marietta, GAPosts: 924Member Uncommon

    You have to remember that most of SOE's prior experience with F2P and a cash shop model has come from retrofitting the F2P environment onto an older, subscription model game.  I'm curious to see exactly how they are approaching their first fantasy game that has been built from scratch with the F2P/Cash shop model in place.  What kind of pricing can we expect?  How functional with the basic game be, compared with a fully unlocked game?   Are they doing anything new with pricing?

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • RamanadjinnRamanadjinn Huntsville, ALPosts: 1,365Member Uncommon

    I didn't have a problem with planetside.  I subbed it for a couple months while I played it and thought it worked fine for me.

    No idea how they could do that in EQNext though.  I guess we'll see how it all shakes out.

  • Darkarai79Darkarai79 Jacksonville, FLPosts: 39Member
    idk about you but id rather not waste 60-70$ on a game that might or might not suck. Reading reviews doesn't do it for me either, people will always have opinions so now that F2P has come around im glad i get to try something before hand, you wouldn't buy a box at a restaurant and trust the waiter's opinion saying its amazing deal! lol you might get some crap on a stick and your down 60$....
  • VutarVutar BaghdadPosts: 773Member Uncommon
    There are too many positive things being written by those who viewed it at E3. Smedley will find a way to screw it all up. It never fails. Doing away with a sub fee and instead nickle and diming players to death would do the job. 
  • greenblood82greenblood82 JossgrundPosts: 29Member Uncommon
    My guess is for the full gaming experience people will have to pay alot more than the usual 15$ sub-costs.
  • Darkarai79Darkarai79 Jacksonville, FLPosts: 39Member
    mabye itll be just like eq1 is. I play that and i feel no restrictions at all and im rocking a lvl 70 raid geared monk with my 2.0 and have plenty of money, only think i would have to pay for is that ornamentation crap 
  • IadienIadien Charleston, WVPosts: 638Member
    I don't mind if it's F2P. I'll have a sub if I enjoy it.
  • observerobserver Houston, TXPosts: 3,001Member Uncommon
    I would rather have it as buy to play, because EQ2's F2P system is awful, and i wouldn't want EQN to copy that model.  The best f2p i've seen so far is Rift's system, despite the pay to win gear in their shop.  The upsides to a F2P system though is that it will bring so many players to the game as opposed to a buy to play option.  Both have their positives and negatives.  It's best to wait to see SOE reveal it.
  • IadienIadien Charleston, WVPosts: 638Member
    Originally posted by observer
    I would rather have it as buy to play, because EQ2's F2P system is awful, and i wouldn't want EQN to copy that model.  The best f2p i've seen so far is Rift's system, despite the pay to win gear in their shop.  The upsides to a F2P system though is that it will bring so many players to the game as opposed to a buy to play option.  Both have their positives and negatives.  It's best to wait to see SOE reveal it.

    It's not THAT bad anymore, they changed it recently. Also, the matrix for EQN won't be the same as EQ1/EQ2.

  • DullahanDullahan Posts: 2,053Member Uncommon

    Free to play model is a no-brainer, especially for an MMO.

    It provides the players necessary for an mmo to work.  Thriving economy and players to adventure with, F2P models serves to perpetuate the game.

    Planetside 2 F2P model was pretty good, though it won't be the way they do it with an MMO.  The only thing I don't like about PS2 is there is no way to earn cosmetic items.  Other than that, no pay to win ability.  You can earn all the weapons naturally in the game without paying a dime.


  • VutarVutar BaghdadPosts: 773Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by observer
    I would rather have it as buy to play, because EQ2's F2P system is awful, and i wouldn't want EQN to copy that model.  The best f2p i've seen so far is Rift's system, despite the pay to win gear in their shop.  The upsides to a F2P system though is that it will bring so many players to the game as opposed to a buy to play option.  Both have their positives and negatives.  It's best to wait to see SOE reveal it.

     

    The "upside" that you list for F2P is in reality the downside. "Bringing in many players" is code for bringing in thousands of children who otherwise would not be allowed to play.

  • CamoebCamoeb Goshen, CTPosts: 53Member
    I wouldn't mind paying $15 per month for a sub. I've been used to that model for so many years it seems standard now. With the amount of $ SoE has put into this game I'd think they have to charge something up front though. Even if it's like the GW2 model where you pay $60 and there are no subscription fees.
  • BattlerockBattlerock Youngstown, OHPosts: 1,393Member
    Originally posted by Iceman8235
    I think F2P will work fine for EQ next.  It'll help keep the servers full longer.  Having a stable income, if I enjoy the game I'll most likely sub to it if there are time saving bonuses involved in subbing.

     

     

    F2p does not provide stable income. It provides a quick in rush and then in 2 months the income is gone. That's what the devs want not what the players want.

  • IadienIadien Charleston, WVPosts: 638Member
    Originally posted by Battlerock
    Originally posted by Iceman8235
    I think F2P will work fine for EQ next.  It'll help keep the servers full longer.  Having a stable income, if I enjoy the game I'll most likely sub to it if there are time saving bonuses involved in subbing.

     

     

    F2p does not provide stable income. It provides a quick in rush and then in 2 months the income is gone. That's what the devs want not what the players want.

    SoE clearly disagrees with you. Maybe you should alert them, and tell them that their numbers are wrong and to switch back to their old business model.

    Also, League of Legends (AKA money machine) disagrees. =p

    There are many examples of F2P being a huge success.

  • LatronusLatronus Lexington Park, MDPosts: 692Member
    Originally posted by burdock2
    I myself would be happy to pay a subscription. Are people happy that it will be free to play or is that casting a pall on the shiny new game? What would you consider to be SOEs best "Free to play"model out of thier current stable of games?

    I'd pay a sub no problem.  I can't stand what comes with F2P (pay-to-win mechanics) and B2P (GW2) isn't much better.  I'm sure they will use the same cash shop as they do in EQ2 so no big deal for me... that is as long as it IS just like EQ2s.

    image
  • LatronusLatronus Lexington Park, MDPosts: 692Member
    Originally posted by Iadien
    Originally posted by Battlerock
    Originally posted by Iceman8235
    I think F2P will work fine for EQ next.  It'll help keep the servers full longer.  Having a stable income, if I enjoy the game I'll most likely sub to it if there are time saving bonuses involved in subbing.

     

     

    F2p does not provide stable income. It provides a quick in rush and then in 2 months the income is gone. That's what the devs want not what the players want.

    SoE clearly disagrees with you. Maybe you should alert them, and tell them that their numbers are wrong and to switch back to their old business model.

    Umm the MARKET disagrees with him since almost every game that goes F2P makes more money after they go that.  Want examples?  DDO and SW:TOR just to name 2.

    image
  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,850Member Uncommon
    I'd like to see B2P as it makes an account mean something to the player. That encourages a better community. PS2 is a good example. Most people are great but a few are not and proximity chat can make things unsavory. I have a feeling SoEMote will be active in a proximity chat capacity... I'd like account bans to mean something... just to be safe.
  • OG_ZorvanOG_Zorvan Fresno, CAPosts: 615Member

    After playing TSW, I'd have to say outside of Pay to Play, I prefer Buy to Play.

    No "pay for more bank slots" or "pay for more hotbars" or "pay to use the AH".

    Everything in the game available to me and the only thing I need to buy  is future content expansions just like in a Pay to Play game. Or fluffy crap like clothing from the cash shop, which is optional.

    EA CEO John Riccitiello's on future microtransactions: "When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip, and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you're really not very price sensitive at that point in time...We're not gouging, but we're charging."

  • NotimeforbsNotimeforbs Memphis, TNPosts: 346Member Common

    I hate F2P and Item Shops.  The bigger they get, the more obvious it is that they are a complete rip off, nickel and diming scam.  It makes me sick to just think a corporation could get away with it, or that they have absolutely no ethic to NOT do it.

    Be that as it may... I realize some people prefer it.  Why?  I don't know.  Somehow they don't realize they end up paying more.  I guess it's the convenience of it.

    Here's what I say.  Offer both.  But don't charge the subscribers for Item Shop crap - offer it in the game.  And don't do that bogus bull-crap where it takes you months and months of grinding and subscription cost to get one item.  This is exactly what SWTOR does.  Even when I subscribed, I'm punished with ridiculous goals and costs to items.

  • BattlerockBattlerock Youngstown, OHPosts: 1,393Member
    Originally posted by Iadien
    Originally posted by Battlerock
    Originally posted by Iceman8235
    I think F2P will work fine for EQ next.  It'll help keep the servers full longer.  Having a stable income, if I enjoy the game I'll most likely sub to it if there are time saving bonuses involved in subbing.

     

     

    F2p does not provide stable income. It provides a quick in rush and then in 2 months the income is gone. That's what the devs want not what the players want.

    SoE clearly disagrees with you. Maybe you should alert them, and tell them that their numbers are wrong and to switch back to their old business model.

    Also, League of Legends (AKA money machine) disagrees. =p

    There are many examples of F2P being a huge success.

    Check out Yoshida's recent quotes about sustainable payment models

  • killahhkillahh calgary, ABPosts: 437Member

    all i see are rumors about ftp, ill just wait for the soe live announcement.

     

    would be nice though to stick it to all the ftp  cheapskates out there though and offer sub, but thats my opinion.

    might not be politicaly correct, but imho, if you can afford a computer, afford internet, then you can afford to pay for a game.

     

    Gonada Dahung,over 20 years of mmorpg's and counting....Please Lord, let someone make a game that had all the awesomeness of UO, EQ and EVE...

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,850Member Uncommon
    I agree Killahh. I said B2P but I'm also hoping for a sub option like the rest of the SoE games. I would at least like the box to cost something no matter if subbed or not.
«1345
Sign In or Register to comment.