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

[Scoric]

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."

 

For a lot of people, you are correct. This is basically what they are saying...but not everyone is like that. I am a subscriber, but when I was laid off of a job a while back, I ended my subscription (for obvious reasons) and played as a preferred status player (when I wasn't out looking for a job). It was a bit frustrating, obviously, and I don't even want to know how annoying it would be as a F2P player. Luckily a friend gifted me with enough cartel coins to get several unlocks which helped a lot.

 

Luckily, I'm a bit of an alt-o-holic so whenever I got close to the credit limit, I either utilized my wife to log in and trade credits to, so she could in turn trade them to my lower level characters (and yes, I did give her some too), or I did some shopping on the GTN for them. A lot of people don't have wives or husbands who play, and may not have the luxury of someone to help them like this. Not being able to send more than one item at a time, and no money through email is a little ridiculous in my opinion. That's the one restriction that I think is really over doing it....although I would certainly prefer they, at least, raise the credit limit.

[Styxx]

Ummm no?

 

I'm just saying that people are too focused on the number of subscribers and not the actual profit the game is making and that would change quickly if they just renamed the term subscriber.

And it probably wouldn't hurt the game if they switched from "you are not a subscriber so you get this and that restriction" rhetoric to "this is the base game, if you become a VIP player, you get these bonuses" which is how other F2P games "disguise" their free-player limitations.

 

And what PRACTICAL difference will it make? Subs will still ask for and feel entitled to better benefits, or there would be no point in paying a sub to begin with.

 

BTW, PREMIUM sounds a lot more ... demeaning than Subscriber, just saying. And it`s not demeaning towards the other Premium players. Imagine little pauper kids banging on the walls of the Golf Club or watching a cake through the glass.

 

But the bottom line still stands - regardless of the name, people that pay get and SHOULD get significantly better advantages. You know what would TRULY not hurt the game? All those mouthy freeloaders paying their 15.

[OddballEasyEight]

And what PRACTICAL difference will it make? Subs will still ask for and feel entitled to better benefits, or there would be no point in paying a sub to begin with.

 

BTW, PREMIUM sounds a lot more ... demeaning than Subscriber, just saying. And it`s not demeaning towards the other Premium players. Imagine little pauper kids banging on the walls of the Golf Club or watching a cake through the glass.

 

But the bottom line still stands - regardless of the name, people that pay get and SHOULD get significantly better advantages. You know what would TRULY not hurt the game? All those mouthy freeloaders paying their 15.

 

And again, you completely miss the point.

 

This will be the last time I try to explain my post to you, if you don't understand after this I'll just chalk it up to either lost in translation or just willful ignorance.

 

I am not talking about what benefits subs have or how entitled they feel.

I am not talking about whether or not the restrictions on preferred and F2P players are too prohibitive or not.

I am simply saying that the whole "This game is dying because it only has XXX number of subs" would go away if you renamed the subs to something else and did the same thing all other F2P games I know of do; Namely disguise the cut-down restricted version of the game as "the base game" and making all the restrictions look like benefits for being a premium member.

 

Right now the game still appears to be a subscription based game with a "try before you buy" kind of option.

There really are no big difference between this game and many other F2P games except how the rhetoric is angled.

In this game it's "You are F2P so you earn less xp than a subscriber, subscribe now if you want to earn the regular amount of xp".

In other games it's "VIP accounts earn XX% more xp as a bonus, become VIP to get your bonus".

Same with credits. It's "Because you are not a subscriber you will earn less credits, become a subscriber to remove this restriction" instead of "Premium members earn a bonus amount of credits, become premium now to get your bonus".

Do you see the difference in the way it is angled?

 

And the whole point with my post was that if you remove the terms "subscription" and "subscriber" and rename it premium or whatever, people will no longer be able to say "this game is dying because it only has XXX subscribers".

Since not once have I heard that discussion about premium accounts in a F2P game. Nobody cares how many premium accounts there are in World of Tanks or Warthunder for example.

Because in the framework of a F2P game it doesn't matter.

But because SW:TOR so stubbornly hold on to that term, people still see this as a subscription based game and not an F2P game, which it is.

 

 

PS: I use the term F2P here as defined in Wikipedia: "Free-to-play (F2P) refers to video games which give players access to a significant portion of their content without paying. There are several kinds of free-to-play games, but the most common is based on the freemium software model. For freemium games, users are granted access to a fully functional game, but must pay microtransactions to access additional content. Free-to-play can be contrasted with pay-to-play, in which payment is required before using a service for the first time."

 

And SW:TOR most certainly falls under that description.

Edited May 24, 2014 by OddballEasyEight

[DarthTHC]

Ummm no?

We were discussing changing the term Subscriber to Premium Account or something else to stop people from focusing on the number of subscribers the game have to instead focusing on if the game is making a profit or not.

 

But I'm not surprised you lost track of what we were talking about in your fanatical fervor to prove a point about how NOTHING is free and this game ISN'T of the free-to-play model.

 

I personally couldn't give a rats *** about what F2P do or do not get.

I'm just saying that people are too focused on the number of subscribers and not the actual profit the game is making and that would change quickly if they just renamed the term subscriber.

And it probably wouldn't hurt the game if they switched from "you are not a subscriber so you get this and that restriction" rhetoric to "this is the base game, if you become a VIP player, you get these bonuses" which is how other F2P games "disguise" their free-player limitations.

 

Really, the only people who should care whether or not the game is making a profit are BioWare and EA employees and investors plus industry analysts.

 

Players? We should just care if it's enough fun for the dollar. We might also choose to care that new features and content arrive at a pace fast enough to keep the game fresh and fun.

 

We hardly need to care how many subscribers or players there are or how many dollars flow into EA's coffers via the game.

[Andryah]

Here is where I think a third free tier is needed....like "veteran" for instance.

 

Someone that has subscribed to the game at least 6 months or has paid out at least 200.00 in CM purchases should have a tier or access that is a bit more lenient than the current Preferred tier, though still not completely open like it is for subs.

 

I would suggest almost all restrictions are lifted except chat, costs, XP and limitations on end game play.

 

We get enough sub-only perks in this game....really we do. We don't need a veterans reward program... most especially we don't need one just because some other MMOs offer one.

[Andryah]

Really, the only people who should care whether or not the game is making a profit are BioWare and EA employees and investors plus industry analysts.

 

Players? We should just care if it's enough fun for the dollar. We might also choose to care that new features and content arrive at a pace fast enough to keep the game fresh and fun.

 

We hardly need to care how many subscribers or players there are or how many dollars flow into EA's coffers via the game.

 

Yep yep.

 

All this faux-concern and faus-doom about the business side of the MMO (any MMO really) is hilarious in gaming forums. It is low hanging fruit however for correcting false assumptions and understandings by said players with faux-this and faux-that.

 

As to players going the Preferred route in this game... yep.... it's a pretty good path for a veteran who has end game wealth. Since any transaction of $5 or more qualifies.. and since most veterans have sufficient in game wealth to outright purchase all the unlocks they want/need off the GTN... Preferred, with unlocks, is in fact Free play after the initial investment.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Andryah

[LordArtemis]

We get enough sub-only perks in this game....really we do. We don't need a veterans reward program... most especially we don't need one just because some other MMOs offer one.

 

I am aware that you feel that way, I just simply do not agree.

 

Yep yep.

 

All this faux-concern and faus-doom about the business side of the MMO (any MMO really) is hilarious in gaming forums. It is low hanging fruit however for correcting false assumptions and understandings by said players with faux-this and faux-that.

 

As to players going the Preferred route in this game... yep.... it's a pretty good path for a veteran who has end game wealth. Since any transaction of $5 or more qualifies.. and since most veterans have sufficient in game wealth to outright purchase all the unlocks they want/need off the GTN... Preferred, with unlocks, is in fact Free play after the initial investment.

 

I only have issue with the insinuation that folks may be disingenuous with their concerns about game growth, and wanting to see it thrive. My intentions are not faux Andryah, even if I am wrong, which you should know by know I am the first to accept.

 

It is only my opinion. I do not think this game gets a fair shake, and I have made those reasons that I feel are causing that known, to include some unwise choices.

 

Now, naturally, if that is not what you meant...then I digress.

Edited May 25, 2014 by LordArtemis

[Jeweledleah]

We get enough sub-only perks in this game....really we do. We don't need a veterans reward program... most especially we don't need one just because some other MMOs offer one.

 

but it would be kinda nice, no?

 

that said, you are right, a veteran player can pretty much circumvent any and all restrictions and play pretty comfortably as preferred for a while. but the issue is a bit more complex than that I think.

 

I have a friend who cannot afford subscription and I cannot afford to pay one for him. becasue I'm a veteran player I was able to at least get him a bunch of unlocks and help out with promotion to preferred status at least. but... he still cannot play past lvl 50. he might be able to... eventually... maybe.. sometime. but meantime, we cannot play at max level together.

 

honestly? I think that while you should be paying for content modules as non subscriber, I genuinely think now that it should be something more like section x. something that can be traded and sold on GTN, not directly through website. and max level should be normalized between all players of the game.

[AshlaBoga]

The issue is, and remains that if they loosen the preferred limits many people will unsub and they'll lose money thus hurting SWTOR.

[Jeweledleah]

The issue is, and remains that if they loosen the preferred limits many people will unsub and they'll lose money thus hurting SWTOR.

 

that depends on how they do it. if they loosen the limits by allowing more things to be unlocked? (for example - escrow unlocks that allow to temporarily circumvent credit limits that they have already added) then they don't lose money, just shift slightly the source of where it comes from. might even make extra if they for example implement something like Eve's plex. (sell blocks of subscription on GTN, but charge 5 bucks more for those, or charge the same price, but make it come without cartel coin grant - either way. adds more flexibility to how people play/subscribe and still provides source of income)

[LordArtemis]

The issue is, and remains that if they loosen the preferred limits many people will unsub and they'll lose money thus hurting SWTOR.

 

I don't agree. The amount they can gain in just a short period if they loosen the RIGHT knots FAR exceeds the income they could possibly lose if folks choose to unsub.

 

Frankly plenty of folks choose to unsub now, I don't think this would increase that amount, but I do think it would give the game a better face to that that are actually considering BECOMING a sub.

 

And there is the rub.

[Cawyden]

but it would be kinda nice, no?

 

that said, you are right, a veteran player can pretty much circumvent any and all restrictions and play pretty comfortably as preferred for a while. but the issue is a bit more complex than that I think.

 

I have a friend who cannot afford subscription and I cannot afford to pay one for him. becasue I'm a veteran player I was able to at least get him a bunch of unlocks and help out with promotion to preferred status at least. but... he still cannot play past lvl 50. he might be able to... eventually... maybe.. sometime. but meantime, we cannot play at max level together.

 

honestly? I think that while you should be paying for content modules as non subscriber, I genuinely think now that it should be something more like section x. something that can be traded and sold on GTN, not directly through website. and max level should be normalized between all players of the game.

 

I just checked and it seems the expansion can't be bought anymore for non subscribers? That would have been helpful for your friend, because it would be one time cost and not recurring cost like a subscription. I mean it is nice to get it as a subscriber but it should be available for non subscribers too.

 

In LotRo you can buy access to areas and new quests if you are free to play, this would be a good feature for SWTOR too.

[Jeweledleah]

I just checked and it seems the expansion can't be bought anymore for non subscribers? That would have been helpful for your friend, because it would be one time cost and not recurring cost like a subscription. I mean it is nice to get it as a subscriber but it should be available for non subscribers too.

 

In LotRo you can buy access to areas and new quests if you are free to play, this would be a good feature for SWTOR too.

 

you can still buy it. its $20, so its still cheaper to subscribe for a single month to get access to it (one month's subscription grants permanent access, in case you were wondering). but its still directly from the webstore. meaning, I cannot help him out by buying a token of GTN like I did with all the other unlocks (tokens that someone else bought, so its not like bioware is out of money there - and no, you cannot continuously buy that many tokens to sell with just monthly grant - between abundance of packs and abundance of unlocks - people are specifically buying cartel coins, providing income stream to bioware).

 

now. I don't think added content should be completely free. I think content modules should be sold, the way section x is sold. I just think it should be for cartel coins and tradable. like Section x. and other then that - keeping part of your player base split up like that is not a great decision IMO, so at this point not only Makeb should be just available to everyone, but any future level increases should not be gated like that.

 

yes a lot of my reasoning is self interest. but... I'm not asking for handouts. I'm asking for expanded purchase options. I doubt it matters to bioware which person pays how much, as long as overall income stream is steady and there's a continued demand for cartel coin transactions.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Jeweledleah

[Cawyden]

Really 20? Wow, that is quite expensive. Was it not available for less when it came out? Maybe it is because I am currently loged in because I don't see how expensive it is, it only says free to subscribers on the store page.

 

I agree that F2P players and prefered players should not get eveything free -then there would be no reason to subscribe at all. But to be able to buy access to the higher level and higher level areas should be possible and I don't see why they should not add it to the cartel market too. It would help and they would still make money. Maybe add it to the suggestion forum? But who knows if they are doing it and how long it will take. Maybe it could also be mentioned during one of the streams they are doing, at least to get it to their attention.

[DarthTHC]

I don't agree. The amount they can gain in just a short period if they loosen the RIGHT knots FAR exceeds the income they could possibly lose if folks choose to unsub.

 

Frankly plenty of folks choose to unsub now, I don't think this would increase that amount, but I do think it would give the game a better face to that that are actually considering BECOMING a sub.

 

And there is the rub.

 

How would loosening restrictions on F2P - opening more of the game to them thereby making it easier and more pleasant for them to play for free - encourage them to spend money?

[OddballEasyEight]

How would loosening restrictions on F2P - opening more of the game to them thereby making it easier and more pleasant for them to play for free - encourage them to spend money?

 

The only way to do that would be to add more benefits to subscribers and that would only make the F2P/preferred players scream even more about how unfair it is and so on and so forth...

[DarthTHC]

The only way to do that would be to add more benefits to subscribers and that would only make the F2P/preferred players scream even more about how unfair it is and so on and so forth...

 

Why would F2P or Preferred players ever "scream" about how "unfair" it is? One gets to play the game without spending a dime, which I admit is pretty unfair to the developers and the paying players, but if they feel the need to "scream" about it, they could just pay instead to fair it up. The other gets to play a less restrictive version of the game after having paid a small bit of money once which is also pretty unfair to the developers and other players but the same resolution exists.

Edited May 25, 2014 by DarthTHC

[OddballEasyEight]

Why would F2P or Preferred players ever "scream" about how "unfair" it is? One gets to play the game without spending a dime, which I admit is pretty unfair to the developers and the paying players, but if they feel the need to "scream" about it, they could just pay instead to fair it up. The other gets to play a less restrictive version of the game after having paid a small bit of money once which is also pretty unfair to the developers and other players but the same resolution exists.

 

Well I'm not an F2P player so I don't know why they ever scream about it, but they do (not all of them of course, but some... especially former subs).

 

Don't pin it on me, it's not me doing the screaming.

[AbsolutGrndZero]

Really 20? Wow, that is quite expensive. Was it not available for less when it came out? Maybe it is because I am currently loged in because I don't see how expensive it is, it only says free to subscribers on the store page.

 

It was $20 when it came out, however subscribers got a $10 discount.

[DarthMaulUK]

How would loosening restrictions on F2P - opening more of the game to them thereby making it easier and more pleasant for them to play for free - encourage them to spend money?

 

Maybe you should look at games like LOTRO, Star Trek online, World of Tanks, League of Legends, the list goes on. EA/Bioware just don't understand - like the majority here - if you place content behind a firewall, people will not pay it and they wont stay.

 

There's a reason why all servers remain 'light' population for longer - because of the restrictions.

[Zhiroc]

IMHO, the entire F2P model is as flawed as a sub-only model. No one should be able to play a game "for free" in a way that gives them full access. Most F2P models are heavily dependent on either P2W, or funding themselves solely from cosmetics. Particularly with the latter, if that's where your money comes from, what do you think a game will spend a disproportionate amount of time developing?

 

I think SWTOR comes closer to what I think is a fair model, though not completely. This model is more of an a la carte model, where the amount you pay is proportional to the amount you want to play, Now, I don;t mind some level of pay for cosmetics, I just don't think it's good for it to be the lion's share. And, I don't mind there being a "casual and free" option, but it should be limited in how much play per time period is allowed.

[LordArtemis]

How would loosening restrictions on F2P - opening more of the game to them thereby making it easier and more pleasant for them to play for free - encourage them to spend money?

 

...My post pretty clearly spelled it out, but I will repeat myself though I expect your intent was not to get an answer, rather to try and demean the post.

 

The intent is to try and reduce the bad impression new players get when trying out the game...something Bioware has been actively doing since the F2P model launched.

 

I personally feel that the items I mentioned are the only remaining items that really turn folks off to the game.

 

Frankly I couldn't care less if subs dont like F2P players, nor am I concerned about subs feelings toward giving F2P players more perks. My only concern is to see the game thrive and grow.

 

Hopefully that answers your question.

[NorthFear]

F2P player most of the time (haven't got time for OPS or PvP anyway. And playing class stories with full unlocks ain't that painful..)

Yeah, alot of restrictions are making the life hard. (350k credit limit and inability to send credits via mail are on the top of the list for me..not to mention that crafting with only 10% re chance and without crafting ques is totally unfair). But that seems some what reasonable

But still some of the restrictions seems stupid to me..

1) Inability to post in the forums. I mean..really..? If you don't want all of the "WE WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE" threads just let f2p's to post in Story and Lore or STAR WARS Discussion, Classes, whatever..

2) F2P and Pref can't open the tickets. ***..? yeah..support resources etc, but few times already I've stumbled upon a bug in the game, wanted to report it..aaand..nope, I can't do that. You have to pay 15$ a month to report bugs:D

Edited May 26, 2014 by NorthFear

[DarthMaulUK]

 

Frankly I couldn't care less if subs dont like F2P players, nor am I concerned about subs feelings toward giving F2P players more perks. My only concern is to see the game thrive and grow.

 

Hopefully that answers your question.

The game wont thrive and grow when you place content behind pay walls. Bioware just need to remove subscriptions altogether and just focus like they are now - on the cartel market. It's heading that way.

 

The extremely pedestrian pace of content releases, doesnt yield value for the majority, if it did, more would subscribe. And locking out the ability to post on the forums is yet another Bioware own goal. This lot simply do not understand community.

 

There is nothing to stop them having a forum for free to play to post in asking questions, where the COMMUNITY could engage. Some new players may have questions before subbing and it would be the best place to do this. But oh well.

[AlrikFassbauer]

I think Zynga invented the zynical model of making a game so that it is more poain than fun - but still gets people hooked - so that they can sell things to relieve that pain by buying something for in-game.

 

Most MMOs seem to have followed this model.