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

[Styxx]

Something interesting from the Vancouver Cantina Q/A

Andrew and Eric: We are always trying to find a balance between making subscribers feel rewarded for their money spent while also making sure FTP players get a chance to experience and enjoy the fun of the game, every time something new is added for FTP it actually is simultaneously taking something away from subs perks, so there needs to be balance and that is something we are always looking at changing.

 

So they clearly are looking at making more adjustments, but want them to have balance. Very interesting IMO.

 

I`ll quote my favorite fail "good feedback" phrase:

 

2 years later we are still at "good feedback".

Edited May 18, 2014 by Styxx

[LordArtemis]

Well, as I indicated, they have already made changes to F2P/Preferred based in whole or part on feedback, and seem to be open to more adjustments if they are warranted.

[Volthorne]

P2W or Pay To Win, is an advantage that is EXCLUSIVE for cash - real cash. This game has none of this, because, IF you pay 15 bucks a month, just like everybody else, you have the SAME performance as everybody else.

 

In other words, there is NO ITEM in the game that will give you an edge over another player for real cash - no +60 crystal, no 186 rated gear off CM, no "Super Saber of Divine Retribution" that gives +100 all stats.

Here's the catch: If you're a paying player, you're the same strength as all the OTHER paying players... and much stronger than a free player who has not bought (or cannot buy) the Artifact authorization - there's your "cash exclusive" advantage. You simply can't leave out the free players from any example made, otherwise you're just setting up a strawman, like the one I just knocked down. Care to set up another?

 

This being said, you DO have 2 options - freeload and have a large escrow then sub ONE month and buy all the unlocks you need, then let it lapse. The second one is sub and have the unlocks by default.

So your solutions are to A) spend money, or B) spend money. I fail to see how that contributes to your "artifacts being locked isn't P2W" argument.

 

But you don`t get to call P2W your lack of sub and jealousy that you don`t get EVERYTHING for free. Pay your 15 and you can have purple stuff. Pay your 15 and you get rid of escrow and can buy nice things. If you are just a freeloader, you can`t call the limitations yourself refuse to avoid as pay 2 win.

No, I get to call them like I see them, and this is definitely NOT a case of me being jealous. You can keep your extra crew skill slot, and your very minor visual customization options. I don't give a damn about any of that. I do give a damn about content which would be available to free player in literally any other game being locked behind a pay wall. You ESPECIALLY don't lock away high-end gear specifically for the reason that it could be interpreted as "P2W".

 

Of course, feel free to point out something that gives POWER exclusive for money and not fluff. IN other words, if you and me are subbed, what can I buy off CM that will give me a clear edge over someone in the game? I might have overlooked a +100 crystal, I won`t lie.

Already explained, artifacts are slightly to significantly stronger than then anything else at the same level, mods included. Even Legendary mods are essentially the poor-man's Artifact mods.

 

BTW, the red text should read as "by ingame means" - slight difference. You see, this game started as premium sale and sub based and it is still a sub based game. You being able to play for free doesn`t change that simple fact. So, it reads "by ingame means for a subscriber", not free.

No, I got it right the first time, and don't need your bass-ackwards incorrect attempt at correcting me. The fact that TOR is now a hybrid and no longer solely sub-based means that both subscribing players and free/MT players should be treated relatively equally, yet there's still a huge lack of ignorance and intolerance emanating from the subscribers and BW itself on what is acceptable and what is not.

 

You know what? Let's run an experiment: next time your sub runs out, DON'T renew it. Start a new character, and play JUST that character for a whole month as a preferred player. Then come back and post in this thread as to how the experience went for you.

[LarryRow]

It is a balance...you would not want to make it TOO appealing as they certainly want subs to remain having value. Here are some of the things (not all) that would remain in place if they adopted the changes I suggested.

 

No ability to mail to other players

Restricted chat in general

Credit cap remains in place

No forum access

All unlocks for appearance would remain locked

Reduced XP

Higher costs at vendors

Quick travel options would have longer cooldowns

Warzones and the like would still have restrictions in place

 

And many more. There is still a whole slew of restrictions in place for free players. This suggestion, IMO, only removes or alters those items that I feel DISCOURAGE subs.

 

This is a fascinating discussion because there are so many opinions about how to do this. You are focusing on what will encourage players to sub, which is hardly cut and dry. It's a delicate balance between annoying them just enough without annoying them too much.

 

However, there is a completely different way to think of free players: they (we: I go back to free to play tonight I think) are content for subscribers. We populate the world to make the game feel not empty, we make queues pop faster, we contribute to the game's economy, etc. Restrictions which impact our ability to improve the experience for subscribers may be doing more harm than good. I've identified the most punitive of these as:

1. Restrictions on trade

2. Respec cost (since being able to queue dual role reduces queues significantly)

 

Obviously being able to queue for warzones is also on this list, but it's not as restrictive since you can buy passes.

[Styxx]

Here's the catch: If you're a paying player, you're the same strength as all the OTHER paying players... and much stronger than a free player who has not bought (or cannot buy) the Artifact authorization - there's your "cash exclusive" advantage. You simply can't leave out the free players from any example made, otherwise you're just setting up a strawman, like the one I just knocked down. Care to set up another?

You still don`t get it. You see, there is nothing that is locked past the monthly sub.

 

You choose NOT to be a 1st Class Citizen and fly Economic and wonder why they give you half eaten sandwiches. It doesn`t work like that, sorry.

 

In other words - you choose to NOT BUY artifact authorization OR the monthly fee then complain that you are treated like a 2nd Class Citizen? Sorry, but that is not P2W - that is you freeloading and wanting equal rights with people that actual spend money.

 

Already explained, artifacts are slightly to significantly stronger than then anything else at the same level, mods included. Even Legendary mods are essentially the poor-man's Artifact mods.

You didn`t explain ****. You are trying to justify your lack of money or wanna-be equal rights. IF you would pay 15 a month, we both have the same rights. Or you COULD pay artifact authorization and we are even. There isn`t ANY item on the Cash Shop that gives me an edge on EQUAL TERMS. But equal terms is a sub paid, not free play, sorry. So, pay your fifteen and stop pretending you are persecuted.

 

I do give a damn about content which would be available to free player in literally any other game being locked behind a pay wall. You ESPECIALLY don't lock away high-end gear specifically for the reason that it could be interpreted as "P2W".

To you, maybe. To others, unlikely, as P2W is something else - sell exclusive advantages for money. My sub and your sub are equal - neither of us can get +100 crystals nor 200 rated gear, regardless of how much money we might have.

 

And why not lock it? You aren`t paying anything so you have no rights. Want stuff? Pay for it - gamble packs, sub one month or prostitute yourself for a cheap unlock - the choice is yours, but it is NOT exclusive to the CM - it is only linked to your willingness to pay 15 a month or not.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Styxx

[LordArtemis]

I really appreciate all the views, pro and con, and I hope the conversation continues. I do feel adjustments still need to be made to give the system better appeal in the overall market without hurting the bonus of subscription.

[Styxx]

I really appreciate all the views, pro and con, and I hope the conversation continues. I do feel adjustments still need to be made to give the system better appeal in the overall market without hurting the bonus of subscription.

 

Well, I`ll give you my honest point of view. Right now, my sub covers what I expected to when I bought the game. Having been a F2P or an option to F2P in 2012, I would`ve not touched it - Star Wars or not Star Wars.

 

Now, I trusted Bioware with my money to improve the game. They did, but I now have to pay more, or "grind - work" more for the same amount of money, only because they were imbeciles and didn`t make a game that can keep subs. So, from "I can get everything ingame as long as I grind long enough", it turned into "Oh, look! I need to pay more than 15 bucks if I want new looks on gambling, no less, or I need to work MORE to make the money to afford the expensive things".

 

So, if I have it harder for paid money, why anyone that isn`t paying anything should have less than nightmare? Yes, some MIGHT turn into subs, but, if they didn`t already, I am safe to assume they don`t want to go above "Freeloader Status". For ONLY 15 bucks a month, you too can have no restrictions. Because, in all honesty, you get what you pay for. Not you, OP, as a singular player, but in general, of course.

 

This is why I don`t like freeloaders - they don`t pay anything and are only good at inflating numbers, but they demand rights. Want rights? Pay 15 - nothing personal nor aggressive in this sentence, or settle with whatever "trial" you`re on. In this game you are getting the whole story. The single player all given for free should be more than enough. Want MMO? Pay for it or stay and play RPG for free - looks like a more than fair deal to me.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Styxx

[LordArtemis]

I can certainly understand the mentality that states if you want something pay for it. Unfortunately in this case that view is completely off the mark IMO.

 

What is important here is not whether or not players deserve more.....it is whether or not giving them more will draw them in to play and spend cash. For the sake of this suggestion I posted I was questioning as to whether or not the things I mentioned are barriers to folks being interested in the title if they come to play.

 

Folks may in fact come and try it out...personally I walked away from the game completely after the personally disappointing release of GS, as I find the F2P system here too draconian despite purchasing all the unlocks.

 

During that time I spent 0 dollars. Before that time I spent hundreds aside from my sub. I thought to myself....why didn't I continue playing for free? Why not continue to play and spend a bit of cash here and there?

 

The game simply was not worth it. Not for me.

 

So after surfing the net a bit I discovered that the reasons I reasons I had to walk away seemed to be more common for other folks that did the same than I had first expected.

 

But I didn't know if folks here felt the same way...it seems that there are many different views on what is draconian and what is not.

 

I am happy to hear all of the views, pro and con.

[Kurin]

I am of the opinion that if a player wishes to have all restrictions removed, the player in question should simply subscribe. It's ridiculously cheap to subscribe. So just subscribe.

 

If you say it is too expensive to subscribe, then how the heck did you afford a computer capable of playing this game?

 

The players in question are paying NOTHING to play the game, a game which does actually cost BioWare real money to be able to provide for the paying NOTHING player. Yet you wish to give them more of what a person that actually pays to play the game gets. No. No. No. How about being happy you can play for free at all.

[DarthMaulUK]

 

This is why I don`t like freeloaders - they don`t pay anything and are only good at inflating numbers, but they demand rights. Want rights? Pay 15 - nothing personal nor aggressive in this sentence, or settle with whatever "trial" you`re on. In this game you are getting the whole story. The single player all given for free should be more than enough. Want MMO? Pay for it or stay and play RPG for free - looks like a more than fair deal to me.

 

Just to remind you - if the game didn't have 'freeloaders', it would be dead. It's that simple. The only reason why these free players are allowed to run free is to give subscribers a sense that the game is busy when the truth is, its not.

 

You may have found value in the game - great, but others probably don't and if 'story' was enough to keep people paying $15 a month, then the subs base wouldnt have dropped like a stone now.

[DarkDisturbed]

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.

 

You're clueless, subs have been dropping like flies, cartel market makes up most of the income for this game. Check out the EA investor call before last.

 

The F2P system really needs overhauled, it sucks. It's literally the punchline to jokes about how not to do F2P all over the internet. Silly restrictions like hotbars make players not want to play this game at all, let alone subscribe to it.

 

If these elitist holier than though subscribers who hate "freeloaders" had their way this game would have been shut down long ago. F2P is what gave it one gasp of air, but it was met with all kinds of bad media pushing potential players away because of how draconian and obnoxious the f2p system here is,

Edited May 20, 2014 by DarkDisturbed

[OddballEasyEight]

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.

 

They made around twice as much money on microtransactions last year compared to what they made in sub fees.

 

I'd say microtransactions are more important.

They started the game as a sub game because... well... because they were dumb enough to think that a subscription based game could still make massive amounts of money in this modern MMO enviroment.

They were wrong.

[DarthTHC]

They made around twice as much money on microtransactions last year compared to what they made in sub fees.

 

I'd say microtransactions are more important.

They started the game as a sub game because... well... because they were dumb enough to think that a subscription based game could still make massive amounts of money in this modern MMO enviroment.

They were wrong.

 

Darsik is actually pretty correct. The vast majority of those CM sales came from subscribers. Subscribers are important. They have shown they are willing to spend money on the game... as opposed to F2P players who show a stunning commitment to spend zero on the game and Preferred who show a willingness to pay, but within strict limits.

[DarthTHC]

You're clueless, subs have been dropping like flies, cartel market makes up most of the income for this game. Check out the EA investor call before last.

 

The F2P system really needs overhauled, it sucks. It's literally the punchline to jokes about how not to do F2P all over the internet. Silly restrictions like hotbars make players not want to play this game at all, let alone subscribe to it.

 

If these elitist holier than though subscribers who hate "freeloaders" had their way this game would have been shut down long ago. F2P is what gave it one gasp of air, but it was met with all kinds of bad media pushing potential players away because of how draconian and obnoxious the f2p system here is,

 

Right, because a game in which the vast majority of players are F2P generates enough revenue to survive... Oh, wait, by definition F2P have never paid a penny... so how exactly does the game survive again? Are the dozens of men and women who produce it supposed to be doing it as charity work?

[BrintoSFJ]

Unless they go complete free like Rift there is no point talking about going easy on restrictions. As far as "EAWare employees have lives too, they need to eat too" argument goes : Rift released more content; re skinned old content or completely new ones since complete f2p conversion, more than even WOW; the 7 million subscriber base game. How did they do that with a complete free game? CASH SHOP sales; same way EAWare is making money now. But when they actually decided to put those money into developing new content EAWare is..well that is another topic; our topic was f2p restriction.(But if you ask me " then why are you here? go play Rift", i will gladly answer your question; just pm me here; i don't want to offend a certain group of people with my answer.) So yeah unless EAWare goes the way Rift is going there is no point talking about it.

BUT there is one thing they can do actually, sell a 30 day subscription pass in cartel market or 7-15-30 day. why do i suggest it? well just my observation that tells me this will work without removing f2p restrictions. i don't wanna go into details here.

[OddballEasyEight]

Darsik is actually pretty correct. The vast majority of those CM sales came from subscribers. Subscribers are important. They have shown they are willing to spend money on the game... as opposed to F2P players who show a stunning commitment to spend zero on the game and Preferred who show a willingness to pay, but within strict limits.

 

We need to remove the concept of subscribers completely from the game.

 

The game is now F2P and should handle that like other F2P games do.

 

In most other F2P games the people who spend the most money are usually also so-called premium players (who have a premium account that they pay a monthly fee for. IE subscription by another name). They have different names in most games but Premium account is one of the more common ones.

It usually comes with advantages such as earning more XP and money, More freedoms in different aspects of the game and other stuff. Just like a "sub" in SW:TOR does.

 

Nobody claims that the number of premium accounts is important to know in other F2P games.

Why?

Because the only thing that's important is the net revenue. Who is paying for it is not that important. It is usually whales that are also usually premium account holders (but not all of them)

[Styxx]

Just to remind you - if the game didn't have 'freeloaders', it would be dead. It's that simple. The only reason why these free players are allowed to run free is to give subscribers a sense that the game is busy when the truth is, its not.

 

You may have found value in the game - great, but others probably don't and if 'story' was enough to keep people paying $15 a month, then the subs base wouldnt have dropped like a stone now.

 

This game is alive because I and others pay my 15. Out of those that pay their 15`s, some will spend extra on CC`s to buy new shinies, thus spending more than they would by just spending 15.

 

Also, the game is not dead and never was. Sure, it is far off it`s "We want a large chunk of WOW`s market" and a far cry from its 1.7 mil subs, but, money wise, it`s not doing THAT bad.

 

Furthermore, I really really REALLY hope you won`t come in here with a straight face and tell me that a player that finds 15 bucks not worthy for this game is spending 20 a month on the same game in the form of coins. This is only the logical point of view, since we all know that the subs are the most that bankroll the game.

 

In most other F2P games the people who spend the most money are usually also so-called premium players (who have a premium account that they pay a monthly fee for. IE subscription by another name). They have different names in most games but Premium account is one of the more common ones.

Why? Sugar coated or not sugar coated, a sub IS a "First Class Player". Makes no difference if we call them subs or GODS. Premium sounds so mundane, won`t you agree?

Edited May 20, 2014 by Styxx

[BuriDogshin]

We need to remove the concept of subscribers completely from the game.

Disagree. I have philosophical and practical objections to entitlement culture. As a result, if the game eliminated subscriptions and gave all the benefits of subs to F2P players, I'd probably quit playing.

 

Get what you pay for, and pay for what you get. Words to live by.

[DarthTHC]

We need to remove the concept of subscribers completely from the game.

 

The game is now F2P and should handle that like other F2P games do.

 

In most other F2P games the people who spend the most money are usually also so-called premium players (who have a premium account that they pay a monthly fee for. IE subscription by another name). They have different names in most games but Premium account is one of the more common ones.

It usually comes with advantages such as earning more XP and money, More freedoms in different aspects of the game and other stuff. Just like a "sub" in SW:TOR does.

 

Nobody claims that the number of premium accounts is important to know in other F2P games.

Why?

Because the only thing that's important is the net revenue. Who is paying for it is not that important. It is usually whales that are also usually premium account holders (but not all of them)

 

So basically just rename "subscriber" to "premium account"? What's in a name? People get so wrapped up in the unimportant stuff...

 

If you like the game and you can pay for it, you should pay for it. Getting value at others' expense without compensation is selfish and shameful and ultimately destructive to whatever you're getting value from because without compensation, it's going to go away.

 

If you like the game but cannot possibly find a way to scrounge 50 whole pennies per day to pay for it, you should be damned thankful you have a computer and internet connection capable of playing it and the free time to play it and therefore issue exactly zero complaints about any restrictions.

Edited May 20, 2014 by DarthTHC

[jorill]

We need to remove the concept of subscribers completely from the game.

 

The game is now F2P and should handle that like other F2P games do.

 

In most other F2P games the people who spend the most money are usually also so-called premium players (who have a premium account that they pay a monthly fee for. IE subscription by another name). They have different names in most games but Premium account is one of the more common ones.

It usually comes with advantages such as earning more XP and money, More freedoms in different aspects of the game and other stuff. Just like a "sub" in SW:TOR does.

 

Nobody claims that the number of premium accounts is important to know in other F2P games.

Why?

Because the only thing that's important is the net revenue. Who is paying for it is not that important. It is usually whales that are also usually premium account holders (but not all of them)

 

Most games call them vip that have this style of f2p but i dont see why that would matter one way or the other

[branmakmuffin]

So after surfing the net a bit I discovered that the reasons I reasons I had to walk away

When you say you "had to" walk away, you lose oodles of credibility.

[arunav]

Go back to your Magic Castle where either only Utopia or slave to CC exists. The world is a bit more complex, but that would be a very confusing discussion for you.

 

The Netherlands is a much better, healthier place to live than the U.S, imo, as an example to retort your post. The principal factors to me are: work/life balance as dictated in the law, the relatively low cost of higher education, healthcare quality and access. Folks are taxed more, but the country is better off for it.

 

After living in the U.S. until I was in my 30s, I lived there for a few years after graduate school, and was amazed at the difference.

 

The U.S. may have been a better place to be at one time, but I don't believe that's generally the case any longer for most people. The middle class in this country is in very poor shape compared to just a few decades ago, and policy trends aren't changing it for the better.

[OddballEasyEight]

Disagree. I have philosophical and practical objections to entitlement culture. As a result, if the game eliminated subscriptions and gave all the benefits of subs to F2P players, I'd probably quit playing.

 

Get what you pay for, and pay for what you get. Words to live by.

 

That's not what I'm saying. I was simply proposing to rename subscription to premium account or something similar since that's what they call it in most other F2P games.

[PlasmaJohn]

Furthermore, I really really REALLY hope you won`t come in here with a straight face and tell me that a player that finds 15 bucks not worthy for this game is spending 20 a month on the same game in the form of coins.

You can't compare the populations 1:1. You have to compare the revenue made between the aggregate sub and non-sub populations. I'd argue that anybody buying CM items from the GTN is subsidizing that sale and should count for the buying population and against the selling one.

 

Let's put it a different way: If non-subs were an insignificant source of revenue, why hasn't EA ended the F2P/Preferred programs and kept the CM?

 

This is only the logical point of view, since we all know that the subs are the most that bankroll the game.

The statement that subs were spending the most in the CM were made only a few months after the introduction of F2P. In subsequent quarterly investor reports and/or conference calls they state that sub revenue is down yet microtransaction revenue is up.

[OddballEasyEight]

So basically just rename "subscriber" to "premium account"? What's in a name? People get so wrapped up in the unimportant stuff...

 

If you like the game and you can pay for it, you should pay for it. Getting value at others' expense without compensation is selfish and shameful and ultimately destructive to whatever you're getting value from because without compensation, it's going to go away.

 

If you like the game but cannot possibly find a way to scrounge 50 whole pennies per day to pay for it, you should be damned thankful you have a computer and internet connection capable of playing it and the free time to play it and therefore issue exactly zero complaints about any restrictions.

 

What's in a name?

Well I'm sure there are plenty of african-american people who would have alot to say on that subject...

 

Removing the stigma of "this game has X number of subs" would remove that from the discussion of whether or not the game is successful.

 

I don't think the restrictions for F2P players should change. I'm just saying that removing the term "subscription" from the game would change the direction of the discussions from "this game only has x number of subscribers and that proves that it is failing" to "this game makes x dollars per year" which would be more accurate.