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

[OddballEasyEight]

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

 

See my previous two posts.

[DarthTHC]

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...

 

Why would African-Americans care more about names than Hispanic-Eurpoeans? I don't get it. I mean, their own name, sure. But the name of an abstract concept is pretty irrelevant. The concept is what is important.

 

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.

 

Right. So then we could have the discussion over "this game as X number of preferred (or VIP) accounts". That's... better?

[DarthTHC]

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?

 

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.

 

Definitions are important.

 

F2P players represent ZERO revenue, period. Because as soon as they buy their first dollar worth of Cartel coins or sub for a single month they become...

 

Preferred players represent some amount of revenue. However, it seems extremely likely that this revenue is something under $15/month, because if they were spending that much on a regular basis, they'd probably become...

 

Subscribers represent I think $13-$15/month of revenue, depending on how long they've subscribed for, plus some additional amount of cartel coins between zero and hundreds of dollars per month, each.

 

So with those definitions, why not scrap F2P and Preferred?

 

First don't scrap Preferred because they do represent revenue.

 

Second don't scrap F2P because they represent potential revenue (try before you buy) and, absolute worst case, they provide a form of (horrifyingly bad) content by being players others can game with / server population.

Edited May 20, 2014 by DarthTHC

[PlasmaJohn]

What I wrote:

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?

 

Your response...

First don't scrap Preferred because they do represent revenue.

They absolutely do represent revenue either direct or indirect via GTN subsidy. F2P players can also represent revenue via GTN subsidy. That's the point of that part of my argument.

 

Preferred/F2P players as a whole represent a non-trivial amount of revenue and due to the erosion of subscription numbers quite possibly the larger revenue base. I'm pointing that out as a counter to the "freeloader"/"cheapskate" arguments.

 

Second don't scrap F2P because they represent potential revenue (try before you buy) and, absolute worst case, they provide a form of (horrifyingly bad) content by being players others can game with / server population.

Funny how they never publish any F2P -> Sub conversion rates. To use your "horrifyingly bad" phrase the F2P experience is exactly that awful. It damages the brand. The far greater sin is that it damages the experience of subs.

 

I don't disagree that F2P should be restricted, but some of the irritants need to be toned down a notch. Preferred needs a serious rethink and more needs to be done for Subs.

[Volthorne]

This is a little late, but I've been super busy with my job and other fun life things.

 

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.

And Economy class flyers aren't fed the scraps of 1st Class flyers. It doesn't work like that, sorry.

 

You're still looking at this wrong. Subscribers SHOULD be given Quality of Life upgrades, such as more/faster exp/credit gain, reduced travel times/costs and/or faster accessing of faster methods of travel, lower respec/modification costs. Stuff like that. They SHOULD NOT be given free access to any form of content that free players can't access by default. That is both insulting and degrading to free players, and instills a sense of elitism in the paying players, which is plainly visible in such topics as these. For example, I pointed out that there is literally no way for free players to attain Artifact Authorization (equipment progression, which is content of the most basic level), and your response was "so pay for it", despite the fact that locking of such content is borderline P2W, since it makes you physically (digitally?) stronger.

 

Bottom line: Free players ARE the baseline that you need to look at and go "what can we offer to make it worth subscribing/paying IF the player feels like it?" and not "What can we do to penalize free players as much as possible so they feel forced to subscribe/pay?". If it isn't DLC or cosmetics, don't lock it behind a pay wall, because that's how you get your players to resent you and your game to catch a minor case of majorly dead (probably the biggest reason this hasn't happened to SWToR - at least the game being killed part - is that there's a huge fanbase of the franchise).

 

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.

See below.

 

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.

Still a visible statistical increase for combat purposes. Still have to pay to unlock the exclusive rights to use it. Given all other things being equal (and ignoring sub for the moment), a player WITH artifacts will always* win against one without. You're doing literally nothing to convince me that Artifact Authorization isn't tainted by the whisperings of P2W - which, by the way, isn't always as blatant as a super-OP item directly in the cash shop.

 

*Unless the player with artifacts is just really, REALLY bad. Questionable mental facilities bad. You get where I'm going.

 

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.

Subscribing is a commitment. Lots of casual players don't like to make commitments because they A) don't have the time to make the most of it or B) know they probably won't play it enough if they DO have the time to make the most of it because there are other games they like to play.

 

As for the other one, the "cheap unlock"... I will admit it's nowhere near as bad as WoT (oh god. $80 for a single tank), but that's still a pretty big price-tag for something that players run into on a regular basis. If you can loot it, drop it, buy it, and sell it... why is it locked? It's really frustrating to loot an epic piece of gear only to learn you can't use it unless you pay for it, even if you do meet all the other requirements.

 

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

Except common sense, it seems. As it turns out, you can't fix stupid, so maybe you want to get a refund.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Volthorne

[DarthTHC]

I don't disagree that F2P should be restricted, but some of the irritants need to be toned down a notch. Preferred needs a serious rethink and more needs to be done for Subs.

 

If you make enough of the game free enough, you eliminate revenue and kill the game. It's fine as is.

 

Seriously, if a player can afford to pay the $15/month and chooses not to, he gets what he deserves / chooses and shouldn't complain. Because it was his choice.

 

If a player simply cannot for the life of himself find a way to scrounge 50 tiny pieces of copper per day, he should be eminently thankful he has a computer and internet connection capable of playing the game and the free time to play it, as opposed to spending that time to obtain an education or job to support himself.

[PlasmaJohn]

Still a visible statistical increase for combat purposes. Still have to pay to unlock the exclusive rights to use it. Given all other things being equal (and ignoring sub for the moment), a player WITH artifacts will always* win against one without. You're doing literally nothing to convince me that Artifact Authorization isn't tainted by the whisperings of P2W - which, by the way, isn't always as blatant as a super-OP item directly in the cash shop.

Purples are completely unnecessary until you hit end-game which is very clearly where the TOR devs drew the line between subs and non-subs. A good chunk of that is doable in the craftable level 53 blue 148 mods (Adept Enhancement 28, etc.). You want to participate fully in end-game, you have to pay.

 

FWIW, I'd support a change to drop the pass requirements for regular WZs and change SM Ops to work like FPs: three loot rolls a week without a pass.

[PlasmaJohn]

If a player simply cannot for the life of himself find a way to scrounge 50 tiny pieces of copper per day, ...

TOR is now metered? Awesome. Tell me how do I only pay for the days I play?

 

Silly response for a silly argument.

Edited May 20, 2014 by PlasmaJohn
wording

[DarthTHC]

TOR is now metered? Awesome. Tell me how do I only pay for the days I play?

 

Silly response for a silly argument.

 

Your lack of understanding of basic multiplication, or twisting of words, as the case may be doesn't make my position silly.

 

It does, however, speak volumes to the veracity of your position.

Edited May 20, 2014 by DarthTHC

[Styxx]

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?

 

SO, am I to believe that a player that does not want to spend 15 bucks per month for this game, for whatever reason, is spending 20 bucks in the same month? Sorry, but that won`t fly.

 

They MIGHT buy one, but it`s my 30 bucks in 2 months vs a one time 20 bucks sale. It could be his ONLY one for all I know and I care.

 

Also, money is money. Period. There is no other way of looking at it. You either spend real money or you don`t. A freeloader spending 1 bil ingame money is still a freeloader against real money spent to buy coins that bought whatever from the CM. Whether it sold or not, real money was spent, not lulz money. Lulz money don`t count towards revenue, sorry.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Styxx

[Umbura]

SO, am I to believe that a player that does not want to spend 15 bucks per month for this game, for whatever reason, is spending 20 bucks in the same month? Sorry, but that won`t fly.

They don't spend nothing... and one day, they spend a lot on something they really want. And 2 months later, they do it again because they forget the previous one or because it's easier the second time.

 

But the important point is that Bioware doesn't pay nothing for us. No ingame request, no customer service, no moderation and better : free players have no priority to access the server. They only take the vacancies.

They are free to Bioware.

[Petnil]

Preffered is ok, i'd say it's even better than ok, when you have got your unlocks.

 

f2p, tbh i think their trade restricktion should be reduced so they at least could trade in FP's or just move them to preffered status with regards to Trading.

[DarthMaulUK]

Just to throw something else in to the mix. How on earth can F2P become part of the so called 'community' when they can't even post on the forums?

 

Nickle and dime approach is unhealthy. One day, EA will wake up but then again, they have NEVER understood Community from day #1

[JamieKirby]

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

 

I agree.

 

I personally go the route of the first choice, where i pay every now and then for 2 months playtime instead of a recurring subscription, that allows me to pay for 2 months when i have spare cash.

[SgtFrog]

The f2p is awful....I sub because play for free is tooooo much headache.

[OddballEasyEight]

Why would African-Americans care more about names than Hispanic-Eurpoeans? I don't get it. I mean, their own name, sure. But the name of an abstract concept is pretty irrelevant. The concept is what is important.

 

You know full well that I'm talking about the N word. Something that is nothing but "a name" for a group of people but has an immensely loaded value no less. Don't pretend you didn't know what I was talking about.

 

Right. So then we could have the discussion over "this game as X number of preferred (or VIP) accounts". That's... better?

 

But that's the point. Not a single one of the other F2P games I've played have ever had any discussion about "this game has X number of VIP accounts" since it suddenly doesn't become important.

Because as long as it is called subscriptions, people will still compare it to other games that are subscription based (which TOR no longer is).

[DarthTHC]

You know full well that I'm talking about the N word. Something that is nothing but "a name" for a group of people but has an immensely loaded value no less. Don't pretend you didn't know what I was talking about.

 

I don't understand why you brought a racial slur into a discussion about the concept of how one pays to play the game. The two have absolutely no relation to each other. And I totally didn't get that you were referring to a racial slur; I figured you were talking about the unique names African-American parents give their children because, you know, that's their name and we were talking about names.

 

But that's the point. Not a single one of the other F2P games I've played have ever had any discussion about "this game has X number of VIP accounts" since it suddenly doesn't become important.

Because as long as it is called subscriptions, people will still compare it to other games that are subscription based (which TOR no longer is).

 

TOR has a mixed revenue model, just like other games including the big dog, WoW. If people get their minds wrapped around the axle of how many subscriptions the game has, that's their problem for thinking about such an irrelevant thing like it means something. (Unless they intend to invest in EA, in which case it means something but not much because SWTOR is but a nugget in a large pile of... something... within the EA portfolio.)

Edited May 21, 2014 by DarthTHC

[Styxx]

But that's the point. Not a single one of the other F2P games I've played have ever had any discussion about "this game has X number of VIP accounts" since it suddenly doesn't become important.

Because as long as it is called subscriptions, people will still compare it to other games that are subscription based (which TOR no longer is).

 

In all honesty, F2P has no universal definition past "I am playing without spending a single cent".

 

http://www.swtor.com/info/overview <--- what can we read just under the usual PR BS?

 

Enjoy Choice and Flexibility

Play the complete story-driven adventure up to Level 50 for free with some restrictions or enjoy unlimited game access as a Subscriber including a Rewards Program which will grant Complimentary Cartel Coins, a new virtual currency used to purchase valuable items in the Cartel Market.

 

So, it`s NOT F2P - you are playing up to lvl 50 with some restrictions, or become a sub. People tend to read what they want to read, but this is not the case - the norm, or standard is STILL the subscription - the only difference being that freeloaders get to load the game and play it to some extent, as opposed to the 2012 state of things, which required the client bought and a sub plan set.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Styxx

[PlasmaJohn]

SO, am I to believe that a player that does not want to spend 15 bucks per month for this game, for whatever reason, is spending 20 bucks in the same month?

Again you're comparing them one to one. That won't work. Of course the sub will reflect more consistent revenue when compared to a single non-sub even the averaged non-sub revenue. In successful Freemium games the non-sub population is much larger than the sub population. For instance if the ratio were 1:10 then you'd need to compare the average revenue generated by 10 non-subs for the average revenue generated by 1 sub especially if you count whales as outliers.

 

I count indirect sales of CM items. That subsidy fuels the demand. No demand on the GTN, less demand on the CM. The credit caps tend to foster a "use it or lose it" attitude though I'm loathe to point that out.

 

Is TOR at the point where non-sub revenue matches or exceeds sub revenue? I don't know for sure, but I'd say it's close if not already there. The content drought is impacting the population.

Edited May 21, 2014 by PlasmaJohn
reword

[Styxx]

Again you're comparing them one to one. That won't work. Of course the sub will reflect more consistent revenue when compared to a single non-sub even the averaged non-sub revenue. In successful Freemium games the non-sub population is much larger than the sub population. For instance if the ratio were 1:10 then you'd need to compare the average revenue generated by 10 non-subs for the average revenue generated by 1 sub especially if you count whales as outliers.

 

I count indirect sales of CM items. That subsidy fuels the demand. No demand on the GTN, less demand on the CM. The credit caps tend to foster a "use it or lose it" attitude though I'm loathe to point that out.

 

Is TOR at the point where non-sub revenue matches or exceeds sub revenue? I don't know for sure, but I'd say it's close if not already there. The content drought is impacting the population.

 

I am more simple minded and I say money is money and there is nothing unclear about it. If I am spending 100 bucks and buy whatever packs I am buying, I paid Bioware 100 bucks. Your ingame money that are buying whatever I am selling from the packs I bought will still amount to ZERO towards Bioware revenue.

 

And my stuff put on sale WILL sell. It might not be you, but some other guy that spent 100 bucks might buy what I`m selling, because he didn`t get it dropped, or some other sub that hasn`t paid anything above 15, but has plenty of ingame cash.

 

I also happen to not subscribe to the "free players are useful" wave of thinkers. To me, 15 bucks a month is and always will be better than "maybe" 15 bucks a month. And if I am to believe the posts that want more features for freemiums, they don`t seem to want to spend ANYTHING on this game, ever. You know how they can be useful? By paying their 15. You know how they can have no restrictions whatsoever? By paying their 15. Because, after everything is said and done, they are STILL getting this game for free.

 

And I like comparing then 1:1, because I don`t see anyone collecting money for MY sub, so why would I think otherwise? A player either pays its dues or it doesn`t. But can`t ask for nothing if it doesn`t. Tell you what: pay half my sub from now on and I`ll concede the 1:1 thinking. Will you?

Edited May 21, 2014 by Styxx

[Cretinus]

Why would African-Americans care more about names than Hispanic-Eurpoeans? I don't get it. I mean, their own name, sure. But the name of an abstract concept is pretty irrelevant. The concept is what is important.

 

Who the heck are "Hispanic-Europeans"?! Spanish immigrants in Spain who originally came from Spain? These fellows are not Hispanic-Europeans. They are the original Spaniards who first colonized the Americas and from whom the Hispanic-Americans party descend.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Cretinus

[anesvik]

I had my sub lapse for a few days last month, and I did find one restriction very bad. Titles.

In the game you earn titles by doing certain things. Leave ambassador behind on Esseles? get a title. Kill fat boss on Sith Warrior? get Darth.

And yet even though these are things f2p, preferred and subs can do and get, non subs can use it? That honestly, is messed up. Non subs get so very little. At least let them show off the things they CAN do..

[LarryRow]

Someone mentioned that it's impossible to get artifact gear as a free player, but theoretically with escrow unlocks on the GTN you could eventually get there.

[OddballEasyEight]

I don't understand why you brought a racial slur into a discussion about the concept of how one pays to play the game. The two have absolutely no relation to each other. And I totally didn't get that you were referring to a racial slur; I figured you were talking about the unique names African-American parents give their children because, you know, that's their name and we were talking about names.

 

You said "what's in a name" referring to the title "subscription".

You weren't talking about personal names. You were implying that changing the title of something makes no difference because a title or name has no inherent power. You ware very wrong on that.

 

TOR has a mixed revenue model, just like other games including the big dog, WoW. If people get their minds wrapped around the axle of how many subscriptions the game has, that's their problem for thinking about such an irrelevant thing like it means something. (Unless they intend to invest in EA, in which case it means something but not much because SWTOR is but a nugget in a large pile of... something... within the EA portfolio.)

 

This isn't a "mixed revenue model" that can be compared to WoW. WoW is not F2P with a subscription option.

World of Tanks is a F2P with a subscription option.

And nobody ever starts arguing about how many subscribers WoT has... since they are not called subscribers.

Removing the term subscriber would remove any thoughts about their importance.

 

But you know all this already. You are just being obstinate.

Edited May 21, 2014 by OddballEasyEight

[DarthTHC]

Who the heck are "Hispanic-Europeans"?! Spanish immigrants in Spain who originally came from Spain? These fellows are not Hispanic-Europeans. They are the original Spaniards who first colonized the Americas and from whom the Hispanic-Americans party descend.

 

TBH I just threw 2 together to highlight the silliness of the question to which I responded. I guess Hispanic-Europeans would probably have been born in Central or South America and then emigrate to Europe?