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

[Khevar]

The game wont thrive and grow when you place content behind pay walls.

When you say "content behind paywalls" what exactly are you referring to (in regards this game)?

 

One of the main raiders in our guild was F2P for several months. He crafted and sold stims and adrenals, then bought all the unlocks he needed with the credits. There was no content beyond his reach, without spending real money.

[DreadtechSavant]

Well I'm a sub and happy how things are, was F2P for awhile.

 

However F2P and Preferred are meant to be prohibitive to a large extent, if not why would any of us ever sub?

[LordArtemis]

Again, thats a good point, and I would simply say that there should naturally be incentives to sub...but there should also be two other incentives IMO...

 

The incentive for potential F2P that are drawn in to the game to remain playing the game with the possibility of subbing or at least spending cash.

 

The incentive for former players to return to the game and eventually sub, or at least spend lots of cash.

 

And both of those points are just as important as getting current players to sub.

 

I am suggesting the removal of the few remaining items that I feel actually encourage folks to give this game a pass instead of a real try. Most of the draconian aspects of this particular game's F2P model were removed or altered to make them more palatable, and I think that was a good move.

 

But there are still a few remaining roadblocks, IMO, to player retention.

[DarthMaulUK]

When you say "content behind paywalls" what exactly are you referring to (in regards this game)?

 

One of the main raiders in our guild was F2P for several months. He crafted and sold stims and adrenals, then bought all the unlocks he needed with the credits. There was no content beyond his reach, without spending real money.

 

Things like the stale old Flashpoints and Operations and Warzones. You know, the kind of stuff you see people screaming out to others to join the group finder.

 

The cost of passes depends on your server, some are over the price cap for F2P or even preferred without escrows. I firmly believe if that remove the petty restrictions, all of the above would be thriving. It just means Bioware would either have to find a new revenue source or take the hit.

[DarthTHC]

Things like the stale old Flashpoints and Operations and Warzones. You know, the kind of stuff you see people screaming out to others to join the group finder.

 

The cost of passes depends on your server, some are over the price cap for F2P or even preferred without escrows. I firmly believe if that remove the petty restrictions, all of the above would be thriving. It just means Bioware would either have to find a new revenue source or take the hit.

 

Absolutely, if you open up more of the game to free play, more free to play players would play those parts of the game! DUH! Of course!

 

But... where would the revenue come from if you did that? How do the dozens of men and women who work their tails off to bring us this entertainment get to pay their rent or feed their kids?

 

What do you (or do your parents) do for a living? How would you like it if people told you it was valueless and didn't pay you to do it? Would you keep doing it?

Edited May 27, 2014 by DarthTHC

[Khevar]

The cost of passes depends on your server, some are over the price cap for F2P or even preferred without escrows.

Fair enough. I haven't checked other servers to see if they're priced out of reach. It seems odd to me, though -- the primary market for "unlock passes" are F2P that don't want to spend cash. If a seller lists one above the price cap, who's buying them?

 

I firmly believe if that remove the petty restrictions, all of the above would be thriving. It just means Bioware would either have to find a new revenue source or take the hit.

I suppose. It's true that if more were given for free there would be more people taking advantage of it.

 

When you say, "find a new revenue source", do you have any suggestions?

Edited May 28, 2014 by Khevar

[DarthMaulUK]

Fair enough. I haven't checked other servers to see if they're priced out of reach. It seems odd to me, though -- the primary market for "unlock passes" are F2P that don't want to spend cash. If a seller lists one above the price cap, who's buying them?

 

 

I suppose. It's true that if more were given for free there would be more people taking advantage of it.

 

When you say, "find a new revenue source", do you have any suggestions?

 

They could charge for newer Operations and flashpoints, so called expansions but the way content has been drip fed, they would need to be like Guild Wars 2 with its regular fortnightly updates. Then, people have more of a reason to subscribe and login.

 

Hell, they could even look at reskins of your toons to sell on the CM, like LoL does. Yes we have the vanity thing on the fleet but this could be like a full customisation reskin packs with a certain look, maybe even exclusive colours etc for 250cc

[BrintoSFJ]

Absolutely, if you open up more of the game to free play, more free to play players would play those parts of the game! DUH! Of course!

 

But... where would the revenue come from if you did that? How do the dozens of men and women who work their tails off to bring us this entertainment get to pay their rent or feed their kids?

 

What do you (or do your parents) do for a living? How would you like it if people told you it was valueless and didn't pay you to do it? Would you keep doing it?

 

Cartel Market FTW!!! or did you not read any of the official EA financial announcements? If you are so worried(i doubt you are) about EAWare devs not being able to eat or sleep, you should stop being worried; EAWare has it covered.

[LordArtemis]

Yes, no doubt that Bioware could put something like Legacy Mail behind a CM or Legacy unlock.

[Starwarsarsonall]

I'd point out that there are a few games in different genres that offer F2P that is much less restrictive (Path of Exile, Dota 2, Team Fortress 2, Neverwinter) that make a metric ton of money by offering what SWTOR calls the cartel market. These games do, in fact, make a good deal of money. Dota 2 is about to have an international tournament that was player funded and raised 7 MILLION dollars (that's not including the cut Valve took)!

 

Aesthetics are a vast source of currency. i've played all of the above games and in each of them, said to myself, "I'm playing this game for free, since I like it, i'll put some money into the game."

 

Now, picture SWTOR when I started in March. I was preferred on day 1, spent $250 within the first month, then subbed. I have no interest in purchasing anything more now that I'm subscribed, as I'm paying for content and now offer BW a small amount of money on a monthly basis.

 

In PoE, I spent ~$800 over a 6 month period, and that has ZERO restrictions at all - their model is 100% non-pay 2 win (example: stat crystals would NEVER be offered in PoE - that's paying for an advantage, and NOTHING can offer an advantage in their model) Neverwinter was ~$500 over 6 months.

 

I'll never get to that level in SWTOR now that I'm subbed, particularly because they OFFER the sub, they've lost money from me, but I think BW has underestimated the power of non-sub purchasing power.

 

But personally, I think that they're still really upset that their game was forced into F2P, and thus are overly aggressive in their attempts to "persuade" non-subs to become subs. If they made a game enjoyable without the NEED for F2P (locking content - operations, 4+ FPs/WZs, credit limit, XP reduction at 20+) , they'd have (more) people that make purchases purely for aesthetics and support for the game.

 

honestly, that notice once i hit 20 saying, "hey, we're reducing your xp rate now because you're not a sub" was a real stupid move. You got my (small) investment to remove that and get my character leveling with rested, regular XP - i even spent my remaining CC on the legacy boosts to ALL areas and it still feels slower than I'd like when i'm leveling.

 

They got a 3 month sub from me, and a giant reduction in additional financial support. i'll be preferred and they'll not get my typical 50-100 dollars of "free to play support" I usually toss at a free to play game because they're not free to play, they offer a sub, and think the hybrid model (i.e. punishing players that don't feel the game is worth a subscription, maybe because there is a lack of content being released, maybe because the game offers lacking options in end game) benefits them more than a higher population and more opportunity for independent-player financial support based on the quality of their game.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Starwarsarsonall

[Edzew]

I'd point out that there are a few games in different genres that offer F2P that is much less restrictive (Path of Exile, Dota 2, Team Fortress 2, Neverwinter) that make a metric ton of money by offering what SWTOR calls the cartel market. These games do, in fact, make a good deal of money. Dota 2 is about to have an international tournament that was player funded and raised 7 MILLION dollars (that's not including the cut Valve took)!

 

Aesthetics are a vast source of currency. i've played all of the above games and in each of them, said to myself, "I'm playing this game for free, since I like it, i'll put some money into the game."

 

Now, picture SWTOR when I started in March. I was preferred on day 1, spent $250 within the first month, then subbed. I have no interest in purchasing anything more now that I'm subscribed, as I'm paying for content and now offer BW a small amount of money on a monthly basis.

 

In PoE, I spent ~$800 over a 6 month period, and that has ZERO restrictions at all - their model is 100% non-pay 2 win (example: stat crystals would NEVER be offered in PoE - that's paying for an advantage, and NOTHING can offer an advantage in their model) Neverwinter was ~$500 over 6 months.

 

I'll never get to that level in SWTOR now that I'm subbed, particularly because they OFFER the sub, they've lost money from me, but I think BW has underestimated the power of non-sub purchasing power.

 

But personally, I think that they're still really upset that their game was forced into F2P, and thus are overly aggressive in their attempts to "persuade" non-subs to become subs. If they made a game enjoyable without the NEED for F2P (locking content - operations, 4+ FPs/WZs, credit limit, XP reduction at 20+) , they'd have (more) people that make purchases purely for aesthetics and support for the game.

 

honestly, that notice once i hit 20 saying, "hey, we're reducing your xp rate now because you're not a sub" was a real stupid move. You got my (small) investment to remove that and get my character leveling with rested, regular XP - i even spent my remaining CC on the legacy boosts to ALL areas and it still feels slower than I'd like when i'm leveling.

 

They got a 3 month sub from me, and a giant reduction in additional financial support. i'll be preferred and they'll not get my typical 50-100 dollars of "free to play support" I usually toss at a free to play game because they're not free to play, they offer a sub, and think the hybrid model (i.e. punishing players that don't feel the game is worth a subscription, maybe because there is a lack of content being released, maybe because the game offers lacking options in end game) benefits them more than a higher population and more opportunity for independent-player financial support based on the quality of their game.

 

very well said!! i have spent more money in Star Conflict and Marvel heroes than i have in TOR and both of those are completely free! no need to buy anything at all in either of those two games. i really think TOR is really missing the point of the free to play aspect. depending on how this next big update goes with the housing will determine if i stay a sub or not.

[slafko]

It's amazing how they've learned almost nothing from other games on the market. I sometimes get the feeling EA is stomping their feet and yelling "You will respect my authoritaaaaa!" when they're being stubborn.

[Lord_of_Mu]

It's amazing how they've learned almost nothing from other games on the market. I sometimes get the feeling EA is stomping their feet and yelling "You will respect my authoritaaaaa!" when they're being stubborn.

 

That actually seems quite realistic.

 

I can agree that some aspects of the current F2P model are quite petty and should be removed.

 

- Gear authorization should be removed.

- Ops restrictions should be reduced. (2 Lock outs for free players, 4 for preferred) With the ability to buy more. (Already in place)

- Flashpoint access should be unrestricted

- UI restrictions should be removed.

- Field revive should be cooldown based. Longer cooldowns for free and preferred players.

- Titles and color matching should be accessible to all.

Along with better customer support. Though I think everyone wants better customer support.

 

The game should focus on getting people hooked by allowing a small taste of what is on offer and letting the player decide if the game is worth spending more money on.

[DarthTHC]

That actually seems quite realistic.

 

I can agree that some aspects of the current F2P model are quite petty and should be removed.

 

- Gear authorization should be removed.

- Ops restrictions should be reduced. (2 Lock outs for free players, 4 for preferred) With the ability to buy more. (Already in place)

- Flashpoint access should be unrestricted

- UI restrictions should be removed.

- Field revive should be cooldown based. Longer cooldowns for free and preferred players.

- Titles and color matching should be accessible to all.

Along with better customer support. Though I think everyone wants better customer support.

 

The game should focus on getting people hooked by allowing a small taste of what is on offer and letting the player decide if the game is worth spending more money on.

 

If they did all that, what would be the (real) difference between F2P and Subscriber, aside from one pays for the value he receives and the other is a parasite?

[Sidenti]

The F2P/Preferred system is in place for two reasons: To convert non-paying players into paying players (preferably with subscriptions), and to make the paying customers feel like they're getting a bit more for their financial support.

 

In light of this, I'm perfectly fine with the system as it is because it works. I enjoy the perks I get over Freeps and Preems for my financial support of the game. If you want these perks, you should only be able to get them by paying money. That way, the game stays open for everyone to play.

 

Don't want the perks? Don't pay. No one's holding a gun to your head to force you to sub up. You just think that's happening because the system is doing what it was designed to do psychologically. -bp

[Mdgshorty]

There would still be perks to being a subscriber like:

 

Getting rest XP

No Credit Cap

Quicker cooldown for traveling

No charge for respec

 

The real money should be either converting free players to sub or preferred status. If you did not have all of the restrictions that you have in place now, you would see more money coming from preferred players along with subscribers.

[Sidenti]

There would still be perks to being a subscriber like:

 

Getting rest XP

No Credit Cap

Quicker cooldown for traveling

No charge for respec

 

The real money should be either converting free players to sub or preferred status. If you did not have all of the restrictions that you have in place now, you would see more money coming from preferred players along with subscribers.

 

Without severe restrictions on Freeps, they don't convert. Why buy the cow when one gets the milk for free?

 

And if they DON'T convert as a direct result of being placed under those restrictions? Then good damned riddance. I DESPISE the inappropriately self-entitled. What'd they earn? Nothing.

 

No trophies for participation. The Freeps are lucky they get to play. If they don't like it, they can play elsewhere. -bp

[Mdgshorty]

They do convert if you have incentives to do so. What kind of perks are they getting if they sub. They won't convert if there are a lot of restrictions. They play other free to play games and they don't have the restrictions like this. By not restricting content, you are opening more avenues to spend money on the game. If anything they probably making more money from the cartel market.

[DOHboy]

If they did all that, what would be the (real) difference between F2P and Subscriber, aside from one pays for the value he receives and the other is a parasite?

 

There are free games that I play that offer nothing in terms of incentive to purchase things from their cash market, I am more than willing to play the game for free and continue playing it. If they actually offered things worth spending money on, I would gladly pay money.

 

I subscribe to TOR AND find plenty of items in game worth spending money on. I probably pay 2 or 3 subscriptions worth a month for this game, yet play my other game 100% free. Time invested is probably about a 75/25 split between TOR and POE.

 

There needs to be incentives to pay one way or another, otherwise they are leaving money on the table and shorting themselves of potential customers.

[Drillingsworth]

As some one who just went from F2P to sub I really wished that there was a system where if you spent say 20 dollars on the cartel you would be considered a subscriber for the next 15 days or something.

[Khevar]

As some one who just went from F2P to sub I really wished that there was a system where if you spent say 20 dollars on the cartel you would be considered a subscriber for the next 15 days or something.

Frankly, I think this is a pretty great idea.

[DOHboy]

As some one who just went from F2P to sub I really wished that there was a system where if you spent say 20 dollars on the cartel you would be considered a subscriber for the next 15 days or something.

 

what would the subs who pay $15 a month AND spend $20 or so on the CM? Since the F2p would get the benefits of a free sub AND the CM items?

 

You don't get to be like everyone else without doing what everyone else does!

 

If you want benefits of a sub, sub. End of story.

Person A buys $20 of CC: gets $20 of CC

Person B buys $20 of CC: gets $20 of CC AND 15 days free subscription.

 

I maybe seeing something wrong here but why would this be a good thing for anyone other than Person B and how does it benefit the game by generating more of type A and less of type B. Object is to get people to SUB AND buy CC. Not one or the other.

 

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul

Edited May 30, 2014 by DOHboy

[AlrikFassbauer]

My personally biggerst problem with the F2P restriction is the "Artifact Quality Item" unlock. Far, far, far too expensive.

[Khevar]

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul

Drillingsworth, I just awarded you 2x points to make up for DOHboy's no points.

[DarthTHC]

As some one who just went from F2P to sub I really wished that there was a system where if you spent say 20 dollars on the cartel you would be considered a subscriber for the next 15 days or something.

 

I kind of dig this idea. Each time you buy $5 worth of cartel coins, you get to play for a week like you had a subscription. Works out to $20 revenue/month for the equivalent of a subscription, do that enough and you'll convince yourself to just subscribe.

 

Or maybe it's $8 worth of coins gets you a week or $10 or whatever. Point is, at that point they represent revenue, cool, give them a taste of the benefits of a subscription.