First of all thank you all for the feedback provided. I've seen the word “freeloader” be used a lot senselessly and to this respect I feel I need to retort, mainly to clear away some inaccuracies on that regard. Now for those who think “preferred players” are freeloaders and think they are entitled to everything for spending 5$; that assessment is a generalization that does not reflect the “quid in casu”. The majority of Preferred players are former subscribers who paid for any of the 3 subscription options and either let them run out or cancelled it (permitted in accordance with EU legislation) or bought the 60 day game time option, so in reality it’s not limited to 5$, but instead a successive collection of punctual pays to access new level cap and experience new content. But, the argument against the “preferred players” who indeed spend pennies and wish to enjoy everything for a dime, relates to a behavioral tendency to experience the maximum possible content at minimum money expenditure, it should be noted that said behavior is aligned with the overall “premise” of the game’s advertisement as being Free-to-play. Now, the transition from P2P to F2P was voluntarily carried out, no one held EA/Bioware at gunpoint or morally coerced them to adopt the model, it was a needed step, so in light of this, they lost the possibility to (like other P2P games as WoW) advertise “trial periods”. There is no going back once you sail the F2P ship. Here is another point that needs to be made to shed some light on the comments by “QuinlanSaathis” who says: “I have said it before and I will say it again. Preferred should NOT exist. Why do you people think that just because you gave Bioware some money at some point within the time frame since F2P started that this entitles you to above benefits for life.” Well “preferred players”, apart from the majority being “former subscribers”, are always potential sources of income as they generally sub when new content comes out to experience it, hence why they are called “the casuals”. You can say they are a conscientious investor, they pay in accordance to what they decide is relevant for them and merits monetary support, it is not freeloading it is in fact smart investment. Now let’s dissect what this means. Instead of adopting a “passive” approach like subs who spend 15$ a month, validating the company’s decision to rehash old content and imbuing game developers with a false sense of stability and acceptance, ever so apparent with the constant subbing; they instead, adopt the “active” posture and invest when they deem the game is worthy of it. Essentially, what I’m saying is when your customer base is “self-aware” you lack the leeway to maneuver them, unlike those who passively pour money hoping the people in charge will change things for the better. Luckily, Subscribers seem to have woken up and became self-aware with 5.0’s horrible RNG gearing system and they spoke with their wallets, essentially becoming “preferred players” themselves. The game doesn’t need “enablers” who don’t value their own money, be it because they have a lot of it or because someone else pays for them. People need to stop adhering to the drone way of behaving and become self-aware. Here is a simple truth, we pay for water because we “need” to, we pay for electricity because we “need” to, we pay for medication because we “need” to, and so on; but, we pay for gaming because we “want” to and here is where the service comparison reveals itself. When there is “need” than there is perfect economical inelasticity which means the service providers can increase prices and consumers will continue paying for them. Here, we “want” to pay and EA/Bioware “need” us to “want” to pay, so the logic is reversed, meaning in the previous situations we have no leeway, whereas in this one we have. Let’s stop reasoning like this game wasn’t advertised as Free-to-play, and let’s stop the generalization and accept that as far as non-subs go, “preferred players” yield the most promise, mainly because many of them were at times subs themselves, so let’s refrain from placing sweet potatoes next to plain potatoes. The reality is the game is Free-to-play and the “perception” that exudes into those who enter it, is that of all-out access with minimum to no money expenditure, and this is a consequence of the adopted business model. Now, I have noticed also that people seem to misunderstand something about my post, and that is they assume I am proposing changes and that is inaccurate – if you take the time to read carefully, I clearly wrote: “should have been granted access” not “have to be granted access”, there is a big difference; the inclusion of the measures that “should have been” implemented at 5.0´s launch would do little to nothing now, maybe, they’d bring back in some of the “minimum cash expenditure” portion within the “preferred player” population. People argue that the company knows best, well, the influencer program seems to hint they don’t; if their “metrics” are well gathered and analyzed then how come the game is in its current state when they’ve had close to 4 full years of experience? Reading these forums, I have always noticed the remarks against “preferred players” are generalizations that don’t take into account the specific niches within the sample group. Who do you think are the “casuals”? So, the discussion stands, the game is free-to-play what will the company do to preserve the player base that remains dormant as “preferred players” and to entice pure free-to-play to actually spend money? Let’s be rational, and take a look at the following example – if someone is drawn to the game (just to try it out) what incentive do they have to pay to access an operation if they can’t sample one, or any end-game content for that matter? When I go buy cherries, strawberries or grapes, I “sample” one before I buy them. And there is a point I didn’t want to touch, but, seems I am compelled to do, some of the comments like: RataJack “It actually IS about freeloaders and leeches. But, for the sake of discussion, what would you propose to give subscribers once you give away the game for FREE? And, what happens when the freeloaders and leeches start to complain about being "punished" because they don't get THOSE bells and whistles for FREE and then demanding THOSE extras for FREE? The line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I think BW drew it at a fair and reasonable point. If they start to "move the line" because freeloaders want more, the mice will never stop their "requests" (read demands) for more.” This toxicity and hostility towards people who are in the game because its business model permits it is what ought to be lessened; what this does is create a rift between those who pay and those who could likely pay. Instead of making them feel unwanted, which happens constantly and serves as a disincentive in itself to sub, a more subtle approach should be adopted, because players can sometimes serve as a greater incentive to sub than any in-game marketing strategy. Also, when some people argue that most of the game time is spent alone, that is also due to the incentive to “solo play”, mainly, mechanics like “achievements” are solo ventures in the most part, decorating strongholds and farming credits to acquire things on GTN or purchase other specific in-game vanity items are all incentives to drift from group activity, but that is an architectural issue transversal to all games of this genre, it has to do with game design. Lastly, “perception” is just as important as “awareness” and when u visit an instance that used to be heavily populated and you see merely a few people, you associate it with desertification; even when playing alone, knowing that many others are venturing with you gives you a sense of inclusion in your solace. Naturally, there is a predominant social aspect to everyone that compels them to gather where large groups are, empty instances are unattractive. Non-subs do help in this regard, they are content. Overall, in an MMORPG players are “all” content and the most important content. Actual in-game expansions with single or multiplayer content are tools that have a will but need a master (to borrow Marr’s words on KotFE). SWtOR is like a big amusement park with many rides, naturally some people pay to ride the rollercoaster, some the house of horrors, some come to eat and others just come to see what’s up and don’t pay a dime; but each has its own importance. Naturally the park won’t open without people or for a limited amount of them who just want to ride the rollercoaster, it needs “numbers”, the more people the more appealing it is to check out, so yet again “perception”. The incentives for “everyone” need to be revised and the existing “dormant” player base recovered and retained, only then can drafts be made on how to acquire more; and in this regard, remaining faithful to your original philosophy of slowly nurturing new players into potential subs, rather than implementing totalitarian measures that contrast from the advertised Free-to-play model, is the most reasonable path to follow. I wish to see this game succeed, but, it won’t happen unless we bridge the gaps that separate us from eachother.

This post intends to offer a different perspective on game update 5.0 and its eventual correlation to population decline from a non-subscriber standpoint. We read subscriber posts on a daily basis but not so often posts from non-subs, mainly because the system in play denies that possibility, and also, on account of the self-conscious understanding that a voice without money backing is inaudible. This game adopted a Free-to-play model with a specific dichotomy dividing the players in 3 categories: 1st - The Free-to-play (players who were expected to enjoy a “limited” amount of content with no money expenditure); 2nd – Preferred Status (players who would enjoy “additional” content upon punctual money expenditure); 3rd – Subscribers (players who would enjoy “unlimited” content upon successive money expenditure). This model was enforced with specific restrictions and appeasing mechanics contained within the cash shop “Cartel Market”; the philosophy was to provide an appealing product at no initial cost and slowly build a customer base that would eventually become a steady and constant source of income. With 5.0 this philosophy was reworked and costumer acquisition suffered with it. What was supposed to be a gradual and steady pull towards a subscription became an “all or nothing” totalitarian measure. This policy of either subscribe or leave had its impact on the game, it is known that subscribers are the target goal but acquiring them should not come at the expense of alienating the existing population, and this was not accomplished with the latest update. Now here is where the “Preferred player” perspective comes into play. Having played this game for many years, first as “Free-to-play” and later mainly as a “Preferred player” and an occasional “Subscriber”, has given me quite some insight on how the implemented business model has played out over the years. This is the first time I felt I needed to voice my opinion, and so, I used a referral code to attain the sub status so I could post. An MMORPG needs “numbers”, otherwise, the group content discussion becomes irrelevant and here is where it seems non-subscribers are being underestimated. Non-subscribers are “content” for subscribers, for they increase the likelihood of group activity queues, provide social interaction (which is to be expected in a Multiplayer environment) and they are important for the “awareness/perception game” (they help with desertification, because when you revisit areas you see “numbers” and those translate into “people”), not to mention they are “potential” subs. Game update 5.0 had a lot of problems (most of which have already been discussed in depth on multiple other posts), but, it impacted non-subs the most in 2 big ways: 1. (Cause) - Galactic Command became the default gearing system instead of being a “supplementary” one, and, was exclusive to subscribers. (Consequence) – Non-subs especially Preferred players found no way to gear rather than crafting, but with the inflation on the CC market, the 350k credit cap became a barbed wire wall, unless you had friends in-game who could craft for you at low prices; so rather than an incentive to sub it felt like a “punishment”. (Solution) – Preferred players (only) should have been granted access to Galactic Command at a reduced experience rate gain of 25%, with no access to boosts of any kind, up to a maximum level that would let them get no more than 1 tier below the highest gear, making it so subscribing remained the only way to get the best gear in the game, but, not excluding a player base that could partake in group content ensuring subs had people to play with; 2. (Cause) – Removal of Operation Passes, Warzone passes and Galactic Starfighter passes from the Cartel Market without implementing an alternative such as weekly Galactic Command Passes. (Consequence) – Complete lockout of end-game content for non-subs and rupture with the philosophy of Free-to-Play in favor of transitioning to Pay-to-Play, ever more apparent with the selling of Galactic command boosts for money “which actually penalized subs” who were already pouring money into the game at a steady constant rate. (Solution) – Free-to-play players should have been granted: free access to only 2 “story mode” operations per week making loot drop “individually” according to their level and status (to avoid the usual looting drama); free access to warzones with no inherent benefit apart from the acquisition of valor at a reduced rate to purchase (vanity items only); and finally give them free access to Galactic Starfighter with 25% rate on the acquisition of both Ship and Fleet requisition. Preferred players should have been granted: full access to operations with loot restrictions as well as the aforementioned 25% galactic command experience gain rate in point 1; free access to warzones making it so that they can “only” earn token currency with the daily and weekly objectives; and grant them free access to Galactic Starfighter with a 50% rate acquisition on ship and fleet requisition. At this specific juncture the game needs an influx of human capital and non-subs are an asset in this regard, the game is money driven, we all get that, but as things currently sit with SWtOR the first “M” in MMORPG seems to stand for “moderate” instead of “massive”. We need subs but we need more people. The “casuals” – which translate into “preferred players” – are uncertain/volatile sources of income, but regardless, they are income, even if they don’t pay on a regular basis for the game, those one-time payments or punctual payments pay for their own maintenance and it’s not wise to nudge them aside, as has been done by not granting them an alternate way of partaking in gaming activity as existed in the past. Retaining the population you have is just as important as working to acquire more players and this isn’t accomplished by implementing totalitarian measures overnight to induce subscribers, certainly not when what is offered is exploitation in the form of purchasable boosts to command experience as a reward for replaying recycled old content. Keith, you and your team need to have the conversation your bosses can’t have. If this game’s flame is to be relit then prior to the eventual discussion on “MEGASERVERS” the incentives for the overall gaming population have to be revised. The increased communication we have been witnessing in the forums is certainly a step in the right direction, the “overture” and increased “transparency” is commendable and worthy of applause. The influencer program is essential; although it seems to lack “equidistance” and lean towards sub-only views of perceiving the game (which I think is a valid criticism seeing as influencers seem to be subs only). The perception that exudes from the direction the game “seems” to be heading in is one of “contained optimism”, but, if that perception isn’t strengthened by a “real” look at population decline, it will erode into nothing. This discussion is pivotal to the game’s subsistence and should be embraced sooner rather than later. SWtOR had and still has great potential, but, the way it “was” (past simple) handled in recent years has imbued the community with a sense of demise “doom and gloom”; faith and trust go hand in hand, but when you are regularly let down, you drift further away from the medium you previously directed your faith and trust to. The past has tilted to an empirical understanding that the game was deliberately being sunk by its caretakers; therefore the present should sketch a future of “reshaping” the instituted conviction or validating its conclusion. I have done my best to shape my thoughts into a cohesive and well-constructed manner, to provide whoever reads this with a lucid and carefully thought text, so that the message I am trying to convey can be apprehended with clarity and drive the discussion forward. Knowing that my 7 day referral will end soon, I will take the chance to leave my thank you (in advance) to everyone who does read this post and provides feedback in whichever way. Thank you all and see you in-game. Best regards from, Neuthralis.