Master-Nala Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 The problem is they are not offering something new for subscribers they are instead taking away from the F2Pers, which means that the 15 dollars i spend now will still not offer enough to make that amount worth it, when i could just delete and reroll for free. Taking away instead of adding is not going to make me forget that was I bored of the end game content. That presumes something that is already known not to be true. We know for a fact that the devs will be adding more to the game, it's already been announced. It looks like the devs will be allowing non-subscription players to purchase the parts of the game that they like. If you like story, I suspect Makeb and future story based parts of the game will be purchasable. You are also assuming that you will be allowed to just reroll each of the eight classes. Right now we know that there are "limited character creation options". If I was Bioware/EA I would only allow Free players access to certain classes and or lock in their choice of class once they create a character. It's not like you're the first person to suggest they will just delete and reroll 8 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dras_Keto Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Actually the path to 50 in this game is one of the greatest path to max level in MMOs if you want to look at it objectively. Its what comes after is what bioware should be worried about. The 'what comes after' is exactly what Im referring to. Just think. Brand new, level 50 f2per, still in the gear they got from the beginning of Corellia queues for hardmode flashpoint .... yeah. Oh, and its a Jedi Guardian. Tank. Well, "Tank." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cretinus Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I am a subscriber, but i don't think that's fair. They really should raise the limit to like 15 per week, not 3. I understand that you have to purchase unlimited with cartel coins, but still that's not a way to get F2P players interested in playing warzones. That is going to make it almost impossible to gain commedations for gear. I hope they reconsider that, not saying they have to make it a high number, but you would think you would want them to experience it frequently to decide if they want to unlock it. 3 Per week is lame if you ask me even for a F2P player. Yeah, right. Or give them unlimited access to every single feature, this would surely bring loads and loads of new players. The game would be dead after 3 months for commercial reasons cause absolutely nobody would be paying a cent, but hey! Everybody would be playing! For free! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 3 per WEEK is silly. I understand they're playing for "free", but 3 wz's a week is just foolish. I have 3 per night where we play short handed as people disconnect or don't back-fill, or blow out/get destroyed by people. 3 per 24-48 hour period I would understand, or 3 wins per week or something like that...but 3 per week in something as buggy and lopsided as WZ's can be, is just a terribad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen_Starsolo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 3 per WEEK is silly. I understand they're playing for "free", but 3 wz's a week is just foolish. I have 3 per night where we play short handed as people disconnect or don't back-fill, or blow out/get destroyed by people. 3 per 24-48 hour period I would understand, or 3 wins per week or something like that...but 3 per week in something as buggy and lopsided as WZ's can be, is just a terribad idea. They may as well call their daily a weekly from now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirorx Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Yeah, right. Or give them unlimited access to every single feature, this would surely bring loads and loads of new players. The game would be dead after 3 months for commercial reasons cause absolutely nobody would be paying a cent, but hey! Everybody would be playing! For free! I thought that getting people to play for free was the idea. I was under the original impression that they would make money off the in game store, i know that some of us , spend a lot more than the price of a sub on vanity items. I played SWG and i owned the cloud city house, that thing probally cost me more than a years sub..oops. The cloud city house was dope though, paying to play an end game that i dont really care for now, is not that appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I thought that getting people to play for free was the idea. I was under the original impression that they would make money off the in game store, i know that some of us , spend a lot more than the price of a sub on vanity items. I played SWG and i owned the cloud city house, that thing probally cost me more than a years sub..oops. The cloud city house was dope though, paying to play an end game that i dont really care for now, is not that appealing. Don't fool yourself...the in-game store is there to make money off the SUBSCRIBERS, not the F2P people. Subscribers, especially this lot, have already demonstrated a willingness to pay for minimal content. I expect EA to fully exploit that in the coming months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kromagg Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 The goal of the subscription/free to play dichotomy is to give you a taste of the full game with incentives to pay for more. If they give you enough WZs to complete your daily and weekly for free, there's a good chance a large block of subscribers will cancel and continue forward with the F2P model having lost no tangible reward other than some valor points (for games beyond the daily/weekly threshold). In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the OP was complaining because that's exactly what he planned to do when this system takes effect. BioWare is already giving players the entire PvE game for free--to expect more makes me think you want to freeload off BW/EA. First of all, i am a subscriber and always will be. I was only stating that i don't think it's fair to only have 3 Wz per week. Of course the game is free, so the more i think about it 3 is good as you want them to have a taste. I would rather pay the $15 a month than to play F2P and end up spending more, as you know people will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieKirby Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 yeah but 3 is a little to low, you already have people who sub saying the endgame is boring and there isn't enough. Lets just make it even more boring because some people cant(or dont want to) fork out 15 bucks a month to play a game. Boring? Nope, its quite enjoyable, but then again, i don't treat it like wow or other traditional mmos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master-Nala Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I thought that getting people to play for free was the idea. They can play free. 3 Warzones a week. They want more, pay for it. Right now someone not paying for a subscription gets 0 Warzones a week. I really don't get why people fight so strongly against the model. Bioware is allowing folks to buy features ala carte. That's more than acceptable. If you're a hardcore PvP, then pay up. If you're a casual PvPer, then 3 a week is fine. PvP needs help so that there is some semblance of competition between the 3/week and the unlimited otherwise the free players will just use it to get some free gear once in awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datku Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Ummm kind of the point of F2P. Free to play doesn't mean you get "everything". You get a little and if you want more then you pay to play. How else are you expecting them to profit from F2P? You do realize they are still looking to profit right? Too many people complainned that 15 dollars a month was too much to afford. Very likely the F2P players could end up spending more than that a month to enjoy what paying subscribers get. F2P maybe the method MMORPG's are going but the reality of it is F2P opens the doors for companys to charge a fee for virtually anything and everything. Player: "I am a PvPer...I don't do flash points or operations so why should I have to pay for those as part of my month sub?" BW: "Ok sir we can offer you F2P where you don't have to pay for access to parts of the game you don't want to play." Player: "Sweet all I want to do is PvP!" BW: "You can PvP as a F2P player but you are limited to 3 warzones a week." Player: "What? That's BS why such a low limit?" BW: "Well you can buy an unlimited weekly PvP pass for only 5 dollars." Player: "Oh really, ok thats not so bad. Thanks for the info." BW: *Leans over to talk to operator next to him. "Just got another sucker. $5 dollars a week to play unlimited warzones only LOL." "Comes to $20 a month and they can't even do additonal Flash points or Operations." BW#2: "Yea but a monthly sub is only $15 dollars why spend more for just PvP access?" BW: "Why indeed...the old saying theres a sucker born every minute." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groncho Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 People complaining about free things I can't understand it i mean ...it's free ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycao Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 While I think three warzones is low I was thinking 3 a day but I mean they are not paying a monthly subscription, if they like the game they will pay for it. They are doing this to boost revenue its that simple. I like warzones and will keep paying, if someone does not have the time to play every single day and want to play for free having limitations to what they can and cannot do is not unreasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderKeeva Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) 3 Warzones a week might be intentional so that F2P players don't realize immediately that PVP in SWTOR suffers from: 1. Premade Problems 2. Gear Gap 3. Class Imbalance 4. Resolve issues I mean if you lose 3 a week they might not be as apparent as if you lose 30. There is usually something sinister going on with EA.... Edited October 17, 2012 by CommanderKeeva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 While I think three warzones is low I was thinking 3 a day but I mean they are not paying a monthly subscription, if they like the game they will pay for it. They are doing this to boost revenue its that simple. I like warzones and will keep paying, if someone does not have the time to play every single day and want to play for free having limitations to what they can and cannot do is not unreasonable. My argument to that is...3 warzones can go soooooo poorly that a limit THAT low, is silly. Disconnects, unbalanced teams, vs. pre-mades, with morons...players need a few runs just to have an idea of what they're even expected to do...imagine <50 WZ's after F2P...they'll be a complete disaster!!! 3 per week is too low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groncho Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) My argument to that is...3 warzones can go soooooo poorly that a limit THAT low, is silly. Disconnects, unbalanced teams, vs. pre-mades, with morons...players need a few runs just to have an idea of what they're even expected to do...imagine <50 WZ's after F2P...they'll be a complete disaster!!! 3 per week is too low. its free u want more things for free? 50 cents a day = full game features u cannot even buy candies for that Edited October 17, 2012 by Groncho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anwg Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Isn't that the point of F2P? Try and lure them in and hopefully get them hooked so they pay to advance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharn- Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Three a week may be a little low but if it was 14+ like some people are asking for I would cancel my sub, as I primarily pvp and only play about 20 games a week, why would I pay for such a small difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drudenfusz Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 The only issue with just 3 warzone a week and on top of that not being able to wear purple gear is that we probable see then more people not even wearing the recruit gear in level 50 warzones... why bother, when you it is amlost certain that you want get it for free (not enough valour when hitting 50) and you can play just 3 warzones per week anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharn- Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 3 Warzones a week might be intentional so that F2P players don't realize immediately that PVP in SWTOR suffers from: 1. Premade Problems 2. Gear Gap 3. Class Imbalance 4. Resolve issues I mean if you lose 3 a week they might not be as apparent as if you lose 30. There is usually something sinister going on with EA.... I don't know what game you are playing, I can easily get my 9 wins in for the weekly in about a dozen or on a bad week a little more solo q games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antipodes Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Three a week is fine. F2P was never meant for PvPers to play for free. The real issue is somehow making the three games they play quality games. Maybe have a F2P-only queue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UGLYMRJ Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I like it... gives them a little taste... but not enough to stick around on the F2P model. This is not F2P as most understand it... it's a marketing tactic. Give them a dozen or more a week and many have no reason to subscribe. Give them a little teaser and if they enjoy it... subscribe or get out. I'm glad they kept it limited. None of us need more super casual players spamming CC and shooting down from the ledge in Huttball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiminison Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I am a subscriber, but i don't think that's fair. They really should raise the limit to like 15 per week, not 3. I understand that you have to purchase unlimited with cartel coins, but still that's not a way to get F2P players interested in playing warzones. That is going to make it almost impossible to gain commedations for gear. I hope they reconsider that, not saying they have to make it a high number, but you would think you would want them to experience it frequently to decide if they want to unlock it. 3 Per week is lame if you ask me even for a F2P player. This will make world pvp more prevalant hopefully! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthOvertone Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 If you don't think the 3 WZs/week is a enough, then subscribe or purchase whatever unlock will be available through the store. I like the 3 WZ/week limit. Will help weed out the riff-raff that's not serious about PvP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycao Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I like it... gives them a little taste... but not enough to stick around on the F2P model. This is not F2P as most understand it... it's a marketing tactic. Give them a dozen or more a week and many have no reason to subscribe. Give them a little teaser and if they enjoy it... subscribe or get out. I'm glad they kept it limited. None of us need more super casual players spamming CC and shooting down from the ledge in Huttball. Yeah I agree while I thought it might be a bit more giving to much access would be a negative as they want players to ultimately pay to play this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts