Is the F2P/Preffered system too prohibitive, and if so, what should change?

[LordArtemis]

I am of the opinion that there are three distinct weaknesses in the current F2P/Preferred system that do not lend themselves to promote growth for this title. They are, as follows....

 

1) Lack of ability to more than one item and money between legacy characters on the same account.

2) Constant spam to indicate that you have reached credit cap.

3) Lack of ability for F2P and Preferred players to openly communicate among themselves in game (lack of a chat channel for F2P)

 

I also feel that a third tier is missing from the mix, a "Veteran" tier if you will, one that removes most (but not all) of the remaining restrictions for preferred players if they have subscribed to the game for at least 180 days in the lifetime of the account.

 

These are the only remaining weaknesses of the current model IMO. Below are my suggestions for each.

 

1) Allow folks to purchase an unlock that will open up legacy mail.

2) Either remove the sound effect from the coin limit spam, or space it out over, say, every ten deposits.

3) Add a channel to the chat box that would exist for free and preferred players to openly chat among themselves. Subscribers would naturally be able to participate, or could simply ignore it.

 

As far as the "Veteran" tier, I have a list of changes that I will post later after some editing.

 

I would like to hear some other opinions on this, even those that wish for more restrictions, not less. Thanks for reading.

[Reno_Tarshil]

The big thing to me about the system is the restrictions on Unify, Hide Helmet, Companion Unify and Hide Helm, Title and Legacy Title display.

 

I feel like these are restrictions just to be restrictions and would be better off not restricted.

[Scyphon_]

just sub, dont be a freeloader .... beggars cant be choosy imo

[Rankyn]

What I read when I see threads like this: "I'm a subscriber at the moment but I want to stop paying for the game and don't want to give up the subscriber perks that I like."

[LordArtemis]

What I read when I see threads like this: "I'm a subscriber at the moment but I want to stop paying for the game and don't want to give up the subscriber perks that I like."

 

Hehe.

 

Well, that is not the case in this case. This is motivated by my own experiences in F2P, why I stopped spending money on the Market and stayed away from the game for 5 months after the disappointing release of GSF. I tried playing under preferred status, even planned to keep spending cash on the Market, but the limitations were too prohibitive to enjoy the game IMO.....and that is with every purchasable unlock I could find.

 

So I just walked away. I am what I consider a VERY casual player, so if I find it prohibitive in my care free state I would expect that many folks do.

Edited May 13, 2014 by LordArtemis

[Rasen]

What I read when I see threads like this: "I'm a subscriber at the moment but I want to stop paying for the game and don't want to give up the subscriber perks that I like."

 

Regardless of this validity of this statement it does have a point. F2P should be restrictive. I don't understand why anyone would differ whether it be from a business stance or gamer stance. You don't pay to play the game in anyway so you face restrictions. Simple as that! I don't get to play Call of Duty for free nor Halo. I have to actually buy the game and buy new map packs to play everything.

 

Nonetheless yes little restrictions like title and whatnot is kind of silly. You want to impose restrictions that would urge people to invest money to remove. These don't accomplish that.

[LordArtemis]

Yea, the point here is when to restrictions actually stand in opposition of the intent of having a F2P/Preferred system, which is, as I see it...

 

1) Encourage folks to spend money in the Cartel Market

2) Encourage folks to sub

 

IN THAT ORDER IMO. It is far more important and profitable to get folks to spend money in the market than it is to get them to sub. Either way, the items I mentioned hinder both of those objectives IMO.

[Superman_AZ]

I would assume the reason for this is to make the sub model much more appealing.

[VanionDarklight]

I used to sub and after 2.0 hit I stayed preferred myself for a while and I always thought preferred should have a 500,000 to a 1,000.000 credit cap, always thought 350k was really low, but I made it work and I managed to buy all the unlocks and storage available for all my toon's account wide with credits and some left over cartel coins.

 

Honestly sometimes I think is it really worth subbing now? because I use to buy warzone and ops passes on the gtn so I was never held back by bioware's limitations and after deciding to resub I feel the only difference now is I save credits on the passes and can send more stuff in the mail and have no credit cap for the 15 bucks. But that being said I guess I cant complain I ain't hindered by 350k in credits anymore if i wanna buy some cool stuff of the gtn.

[LordArtemis]

I would assume the reason for this is to make the sub model much more appealing.

 

I feel it actually has the opposite effect....the sub is not very appealing if you end up feeling the game is not enjoyable in the first place.

 

Like taking a car for a drive with 4 flat tires....sure, you could say it would be much more fun if you buy 4 regular tires, but I tend to think some folks will simply walk saying "if they wanted me to buy the car they should have let me try it with full tires instead of having to pay for them".

 

Some restrictions can have the opposite effect. I believe the three I listed are the only ones that remain to be toxic.

[Darslk]

Yea, the point here is when to restrictions actually stand in opposition of the intent of having a F2P/Preferred system, which is, as I see it...

 

1) Encourage folks to spend money in the Cartel Market

2) Encourage folks to sub

 

IN THAT ORDER IMO. It is far more important and profitable to get folks to spend money in the market than it is to get them to sub. Either way, the items I mentioned hinder both of those objectives IMO.

 

Hmm? I think it is much more important to get people to sub than to get people to spend money on the Cartel Market. If microtransactions were more important, this game would've started as F2P not a sub model.

[Superman_AZ]

I feel it actually has the opposite effect....the sub is not very appealing if you end up feeling the game is not enjoyable in the first place.

 

There's no real way to know if you would really like the game without all the unlocks. It stands to reason most players should try the sub model for 30 days, and then experience it as preferred. Experiencing it solely from a F2P standpoint is even more restricting and could not provide an accurate assessment of the game, or its content.

[LordArtemis]

Hmm? I think it is much more important to get people to sub than to get people to spend money on the Cartel Market. If microtransactions were more important, this game would've started as F2P not a sub model.

 

I think it should have, and I feel very strongly that that is one of the mistakes made by the original devs that almost torpedoed this game. MTs are not just more important IMO, they are MOST important for the health of the title.

[VanionDarklight]

There's no real way to know if you would really like the game without all the unlocks. It stands to reason most players should try the sub model for 30 days, and then experience it as preferred. Experiencing it solely from a F2P standpoint is even more restricting and could not provide an accurate assessment of the game, or its content.

 

This is true, as a somebody who went from sub to preferred for the first time and had the limitations of f2p my first words where this suuuuucks.

[ELRunninW]

I understand that you 'feel' there is a better way but I doubt you can convince anyone. You need to ask yourself, what is the biggest appeal of this game. Is this element of the game completely free?

 

This is the same as saying come for the story, and stay for the end game.

 

How do you encourage people to buy a subscription if you give away everything?

 

Is there a way to put limits, and at the same time not put limits on what F2P can do?

 

Are you asking to change the current limitations of F2P to something that can be completely ignored?

Edited May 13, 2014 by ELRunninW

[LordArtemis]

I understand that you 'feel' there is a better way but I doubt you can convince anyone. You need to ask yourself, what is the biggest appeal of this game. Is this element of the game completely free?

 

This is the same as saying come for the story, and stay for the end game.

 

How do you encourage people to buy a subscription if you give away everything?

 

Is there a way to put limits, and at the same time not put limits on what F2P can do?

 

Are you asking to change the current limitations of F2P to something that can be completely ignored?

 

Well, I think I listed only those restrictions that have what I feel is a counter effect to appeal for this product. There are many more restrictions I feel are fine, including some that some folks in this thread feel are too prohibitive.

 

I think it's exaggerating a bit to say that changing the three items I mentioned would be "giving everything away", unless of course you feel those three items, in whole or part, actually ENCOURAGE subscriptions instead.

 

That argument certainly could be made. Naturally it is not intention to make folks agree with me in some way...only to foster discussion, for or against.

 

I would also point out that the same argument was made when F2P first launched, yet changes were made because I would assume even Bioware felt they were too restrictive. Just because something is "as it is" does not mean it is the best it can be.

Edited May 13, 2014 by LordArtemis

[Rafaman]

Too prohibitive? Hmm...

 

I'v played other F2P games and they all have their hook or hooks. Some more than others, but I rarely subbed because for me F2P isn't a mainstay. It is a try out and I didn't find what I was looking for.

 

Now, I know way to much about this game, and I find some of the restrictions draconian: color matching, hiding head gear, and the cred cap to name a few. But... in trying to look at it objectively, if I came in as f2p, none of those things would bother me in the slightest. Not even the inability to use artifact level gear. The planets and leveling experience is such that if I was f2p I wouldn't realize how bad I have it. In fact, until I got to end game it there would be very few issues in general. But I would be a sub a long time before that happens because of what is offered in content via f2p.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Rafaman

[Superman_AZ]

This is true, as a somebody who went from sub to preferred for the first time and had the limitations of f2p my first words where this suuuuucks.

 

I did the same last year, and then logged out for 10 months.

[LordArtemis]

Too prohibitive? Hmm...

 

I'v played other F2P games and they all have their hook or hooks. Some more than others, but I rarely subbed because for me F2P isn't a mainstay. It is a try out and I didn't find what I was looking for.

 

Now, I know way to much about this game, and I find some of the restrictions draconian: color matching, hiding head gear, and the cred cap to name a few. But... in trying to look at it objectively, if I came in as f2p, none of those things would bother me in the slightest. Not even the inability to use artifact level gear. The planets and leveling experience is such that if I was f2p I wouldn't realize how bad I have it. In fact, until I got to end game it there would be very few issues in general. But I would be a sub a long time before that happens because of what is offered in content via f2p.

 

Well, I think that's fair. That's why I feel there is room for quite a bit of discourse on this subject.

[tacoknite]

i'd say , a while ago the f2p system was overboard. Now, i'd say it's generous.

 

The reason being , is that originally this game lacked in so many areas. With the release of f2p it still lacked. However, the game has a huge amount of depth now and continues to add features that put it in a direction that is much needed in MMORPG's.

 

The f2p system, is a chance for you tos ee if you like it. If you do it, it is well worth subscribing. Do i have gripes with the cartel market? of course i do, but ultimately this game is night and day from release and well worth the price now.

 

I paid a lot of money on release, and was a very irate customer after 3 months of play. Having come and gone a few times, i think that now the game is amazing and the amount of "things" to do make it the best MMO on the market.

 

If you don't want to spend any money or cannot, the game is still playable. Can you beat your class story f2p? There are limitations of course, but you are playing something completely free of charge.

 

let's look at some other games as well:

 

heroes of teh storm alpha...charges people bundles for a game you are "testing".

 

diablo 3, you paid for features at launch that you have to now pay 40 dollars for. TO TOP THAT OFF, you just paid 40 dollars to lose features!

 

in wow, you have to shell out a hefty amount of money to play the game up to mists. Cash shop implemented etc..

 

you ever play a nexon game? or ESO? swtor has done a good job of meeting the player base on a middle ground.

Edited May 14, 2014 by tacoknite

[JimG]

Nonetheless yes little restrictions like title and whatnot is kind of silly. You want to impose restrictions that would urge people to invest money to remove. These don't accomplish that.

Actually, I don't think their restrictions are really aimed at bringing in money for unlocks. This not a true F2P game. It started out as a sub game and it's a hybrid model now. So you can't really compare it to a game that started out as F2P. They had an existing sub base which probably funds most of the CM purchases as well and they had to set up a F2P option which still encouraged those people to remain subbed. If you dropped a bunch of restrictions, you would get less subs. You'd be de-valuing the sub and a lot of people would drop their subs. So I think their restrictions are more about maintaining value in the sub than trying to get people to buy unlocks. They make their CM money off packs and direct purchase gear/mounts/weapons....not on unlocks.

[Kathitor]

While this used to be the laughing stock of F2P, they have made good progress in the game. I think the largest problems are restricting F2P from activities like Ops, WZs, Fps, etc. Those people fill queues to provide content for paying players. There should be a bonus for subs in these content avenues, not a restriction on F2P.

[Pathlight-]

just sub, dont be a freeloader .... beggars cant be choosy imo

 

This.

[Andryah]

I am of the opinion that there are three distinct weaknesses in the current F2P/Preferred system that do not lend themselves to promote growth for this title. They are, as follows....

 

1) Lack of ability to more than one item and money between legacy characters on the same account.

2) Constant spam to indicate that you have reached credit cap.

3) Lack of ability for F2P and Preferred players to openly communicate among themselves in game (lack of a chat channel for F2P)

 

I also feel that a third tier is missing from the mix, a "Veteran" tier if you will, one that removes most (but not all) of the remaining restrictions for preferred players if they have subscribed to the game for at least 180 days in the lifetime of the account.

 

These are the only remaining weaknesses of the current model IMO. Below are my suggestions for each.

1) Allow folks to purchase an unlock that will open up legacy mail.

2) Either remove the sound effect from the coin limit spam, or space it out over, say, every ten deposits.

3) Add a channel to the chat box that would exist for free and preferred players to openly chat among themselves. Subscribers would naturally be able to participate, or could simply ignore it.

 

As far as the "Veteran" tier, I have a list of changes that I will post later after some editing.

 

I would like to hear some other opinions on this, even those that wish for more restrictions, not less. Thanks for reading.

 

Clearly.. it is working commercially for Bioware. If it were not.. they would be making changes.

 

And it has enough constraint in it that many players who try the game for Free quickly convert to a sub (per their own admission in game and even in this forum).

 

I've done the prep work and I can go Preferred at any time and other then the inability to move currency from character to character, and having to moth ball a few characters..... nothing else will really impact me. Why? Because I have unlocks for everything that you loose dropping to Preferred and I have 40 million worth of credit escrow tokens. All I need to do if/when that day comes is to move credits around on my characters and decide which ones to moth ball. The limit of one attachment to a mail is a not an issue as I don't plan to need to move much around from character to character.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Andryah

[Andryah]

Actually, I don't think their restrictions are really aimed at bringing in money for unlocks. This not a true F2P game. It started out as a sub game and it's a hybrid model now. So you can't really compare it to a game that started out as F2P. They had an existing sub base which probably funds most of the CM purchases as well and they had to set up a F2P option which still encouraged those people to remain subbed. If you dropped a bunch of restrictions, you would get less subs. You'd be de-valuing the sub and a lot of people would drop their subs. So I think their restrictions are more about maintaining value in the sub than trying to get people to buy unlocks. They make their CM money off packs and direct purchase gear/mounts/weapons....not on unlocks.

 

/Agree with JimG.