But, **** it all ... F2P games are NEVER truly FREE to play. Not if you want to play on equal footing with all the others! Generally speaking in order to play a F2P game, you must be very rich in order to compete. Ie. you will get an "elite" that are spending alot of money (minority) and the poor (noob) (spening nothing or next to nothing). Does this promote a good gaming enviroment? In my not all humble opinion, no. 1million users paying 15dollar per month=15million dollars/month in income for the company 700k users paying nothing and say 300k spends 40dollars/month in micro-transactions=12million dollars/month in income for the company (just an example) = NET LOSS for the company. and I think I was too generous with the amount of ppl spending money Oh what do I care anyways? I have cancelled the game and I am going back to play SWGemu full time. THAT is what a SWbased game should be! SANDBOX. Free to choose whatever proffession you want to be (you onlky have 30+ to choose from) and change profession at will. With a player-based game economy instead of loot-based. Oh, did I mention that despite it being soo old, the game STILL looks good!

Okey, Reread this then? "A survey carried out by market research firm VGMarket in July 2011 for global payments company PlaySpan, owned by Visa Inc., received responses from 1,006 American gamers aged 13 to 65 (with an average age of 25, 72% of whom are male, with an average income of US$68,897) for questions related to the purchase of virtual items in video games. ..." As you could see from my quoting "... <-- indicates that the text I used came from a longer quote. The one above is the whole start of the text. See the text wherein it is mentioned gamers I mean, it isnt THAT hard to find that survey.

did YOU read the WHOLE post? Lets try this again, now I will HIGHLIGHT the things YOU missed, ok? Here it goes: Based on a survey carried out by market research firm VGMarket in July 2011 for global payments company PlaySpan, owned by Visa Inc I present these numbers: "...More notable statistics, however, were focused on the gender split. For both MMOs and casual games, women spent more money on virtual goods than men. On average, women spent $111 a year in MMOs and $62 a year in casual games, while men spent $74 and $28 respectively. Another significant statistic was the change in spending from the previous year. For MMOs and console/PC games, the average amount spent was up 20% to 90% year-on-year, depending on category. However, for casual games, the average amount spent was down in all categories, by between 20% to 60%. Overall, all types of virtual content experienced an increase in average spending year-on-year, while average spending on virtual gifts dropped from $30 to $23 per year." SEE? The first amount of money spent is for MMO ... how in the nine overfreezed blazing hells did you miss that?

Oh look! A post I made earlier... about just the thing you are trying to prove! Read it, and then tell me that casuals spends money, a lot of it. Based on a survey carried out by market research firm VGMarket in July 2011 for global payments company PlaySpan, owned by Visa Inc I present these numbers: "...More notable statistics, however, were focused on the gender split. For both MMOs and casual games, women spent more money on virtual goods than men. On average, women spent $111 a year in MMOs and $62 a year in casual games, while men spent $74 and $28 respectively. Another significant statistic was the change in spending from the previous year. For MMOs and console/PC games, the average amount spent was up 20% to 90% year-on-year, depending on category. However, for casual games, the average amount spent was down in all categories, by between 20% to 60%. Overall, all types of virtual content experienced an increase in average spending year-on-year, while average spending on virtual gifts dropped from $30 to $23 per year." oh thats right, this actually proves you wrong!

Well, what you are saying is that F2P is good, because BioWare/EA will be LOOSING money? Great. AS a subscriber you WOULD be getting those things too! And Bioware/EA will earn MORE MONEY on your subs, instead of micro-transactions, So, again, how is 10dollars (F2P) better than 6months sub (100dollars)? THIS IS WHY F2P IS BAD (well, one of many things really) (didnt you read my post on the 2nd page? on how F2P will actually make the company LOOSE money compared to a monthly sub based system?)

You lost me. 10 dollars (f2p) is LESS than 100dollar (6month worth of sub)

Well, I think it is a extremly superbad move. Based on a survey carried out by market research firm VGMarket in July 2011 for global payments company PlaySpan, owned by Visa Inc I present these numbers: "...More notable statistics, however, were focused on the gender split. For both MMOs and casual games, women spent more money on virtual goods than men. On average, women spent $111 a year in MMOs and $62 a year in casual games, while men spent $74 and $28 respectively. Another significant statistic was the change in spending from the previous year. For MMOs and console/PC games, the average amount spent was up 20% to 90% year-on-year, depending on category. However, for casual games, the average amount spent was down in all categories, by between 20% to 60%. Overall, all types of virtual content experienced an increase in average spending year-on-year, while average spending on virtual gifts dropped from $30 to $23 per year." How the hell do they think they will survive on those numbers? 111dollars per year is LESS than a year worth of sub (179,88dollar). They will gain even less if everyone is a male! BAD MOVE!

Darn, you took up my points I was going to state ... Well, what I DO want in the game is that when you go total lightside (as sith) you will embark on a new class quest... the quest of redemption (and thus leaving the empire and joining the republic as a jedi)(this can only be done once). Same for Jedi, if they go total dark, then they embark on a betrayal quest. (Obviously you will have a choice if you really want to do it, but I sooo want a quest like that in the game!). That way, we will not have any of these discussions again

Oh, I think you got it all wrong, you dont need to be an egoistic megalomaniac with a godcomplex to be sith. "The Sith saw passion as the only real way to fully understand the Force. However, the Sith believed strongly that the worthy could control their emotions and use them, while the weak were ruled by them" and "Neophyte Sith believed that the breaking of chains represented the ability to do whatever one wished, however more seasoned members of the Order recognized that the true meaning of freedom was the end of all physical restrictions and the ability to attain perfection." Then ofcourse the above is taken from the wookieepedia. And like I said in a reply a bit above, a sith can and will aide weaker/stronger people in need, if that can further their own goals. So a "lightsided" sith isnt impossible, just improbable

Yes, a sith is not a stranger to saving someone from death, or helping a village or person or faction.... as long as it can further his own ambition of power. That you must always remember.