Lifetime Memebership For SWTOR/F2P-Preferred status Rant

[Tilvius]

Ive said this a million times and its been brought up many times before... Turn this game into B2P. Like Guild Wars 2 and soon ESO. You should be able to buy the game and just play it as is with no restrictions. Keep the cartel market, and give subs the monthly CC and a bonus to xp, crew skill leveling or critical chance, increase research rate, add some extra stuff for subs to make it mote attractive and then you would have a game that matches GW2 and other similar games.

[Ghisallo]

Sorry to the OP I call complete shenanigans on your first allegation of affordability. The average movie for one person with snack and drink...more. If you do a rental via your cable provider you are 1/3 of the way there. One Venti at Starbucks...same 1/3 of the way there. It is affordable. The problem is people do not know how to calculate value. Sit down...total your number of hours playing a month...then do the math and see how many cents per hour you are paying.

 

Sorry but from any logical analysis a subscription based MMO is actually one of the cheapest form of entertainment (that you have to pay for). The problem is that people raised on console games don't think you should have to pay to play after you buy the game but even that is changing now with the charges that PlayStation and Microsoft are now charging for access.

 

Now if you are a kid maybe mommy and daddy don't want to pay your sub...I get that...but if you bought your computer and pay for your internet connection yourself its not a matter of not being able to pay for the sub...far more likely it is simply a matter of either priorities (rather have those Starbucks or see those movies) or just not wanting to pay.

 

Heck the price of subscription hasn't changed since these games were first introduced in the late 1990. on the other hand other luxuries and forms of entertainment have become more expensive but people are still going to the movies they're still paying $5 for a cup of coffee and the one thing that hasn't been affected by inflation is the one thing that is too expensive. It's simply figures logic to be entirely on. Like anything else it's simply a matter of priorities. Maybe playing this game isn't a priority to you to the point that paying for a (realtively speaking) inexpensive subscription is worth it. Maybe you would rather do one of the other things. However if you do these other things, the proper statements are "I don't want to pay" or "its not that important for me to pay", not " I can't.

 

Hell the other day I saw someone complaining about the cost of a sub and prices in the cash shop while at the same time talking about how much they liked weed. ***?

 

On a side note if "a lot of people can't afford it" how are the millions of sub's WoW still has explained? Or the vast number of people here at the beginning? It comes down to desire to pay not ability. Say "a lot" or "most", imo is a transparent attempt to engage the pity reflex.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Halinalle]

Uh. What? That's less than the cost of one movie night.

 

And that's just max 2,5h/month.

My Raptr stats say 107 days, 5 hours and 30 minutes. Yes, that's over 2500 hours. I only played randomly from April 2012 to summer 2013 (maybe 10h/month or something like that).

Edited March 9, 2015 by Halinalle

[Happy_Puppy]

Heck the price of subscription hasn't changed since these games were first introduced in the late 1990. other things,

 

umm.. not so.. AC, EQ, UO were only 9.99 a month.... then a few like AO went to 12.95 a month and then capped out when WoW started the 14.95 a month.

 

Economy and the industry felt that 14.95 a month was the sweet spot.. any more people wouldn't pay.

 

LTS has nothing to do with monthly sub though. its just a different way to pay. pay for 2 to 3 years now with the idea that if the game lives longer you will be getting a deal. It really has nothing to do with 15 a month... its more pay more now for a deal down the road.

[Ghisallo]

umm.. not so.. AC, EQ, UO were only 9.99 a month.... then a few like AO went to 12.95 a month and then capped out when WoW started the 14.95 a month.

 

Economy and the industry felt that 14.95 a month was the sweet spot.. any more people wouldn't pay.

 

LTS has nothing to do with monthly sub though. its just a different way to pay. pay for 2 to 3 years now with the idea that if the game lives longer you will be getting a deal. It really has nothing to do with 15 a month... its more pay more now for a deal down the road.

 

Noted on UO and AC but most people wouldn't know those games if they slapped em in the face. EQ I could have sworn was 14.99 from the jump. Maybe I am wrong. I went to EQ2 as soon at it launched and I know that was 14.99. /shrug

 

Regardless

 

My point isn't yay or nay about LTS. My point was the OP said "a lot of people can't afford." If a lot of people can't afford 14.99 a month, they sure can't afford to pay fro 2 or 3 years up front. So really my issue is with a poor argument, it just lacks logical sense.

 

Tbh it seems a disingenuous argument. They talk about an expensive LTS and then go on about all the downsides for someone who chooses to go the f2p or preferred route for a vast majority of the thread. In essence it seems like a proper forming of the argument would be "hey you guys willing to be subscribers...if you paided 250 bucks no front then us f2p players would actually have unrestricted f2p access. Since a lot of can't afford to pay to play it would be much appreciated if you subsidized our play.

 

First that's not the point of f2p. F2p is the greatest con in the history of gaming. The whole point of f2p is to get you in the door in the hopes that you get hooked into one of the revenue streams. That's it. Second it was such a transparent attempt at using guilt and emotion... The whole "a lot of people can't...." Plus the "I know it's a lot of money but..."

 

"hey this guy won't pay...you over there, won't you pay more up front to show your support for the game you like by paying a few hundred bucks up front so this guy over here can have the same access as you do for nothing". This is ultimately what they were saying.

 

I have no problem doing that with necessities. I pay my taxes, give to charities to make up what I see as a difference. I think it total bunk though for someone to say I should do that for luxury entertainment. Should I pay a few hundred dollars so other people can go see Age of Ultron for free? Maybe I should have paid 14 grand instead of 7 grand so someone can have a free custom Italian bicycle like mine? Its a BAD argument they made.

 

If they just said " hey guys I bet if you offered a lifetime sub a bunch of people would pay and you could do a lot of stuff with that money" it would have been okay (but illogical still because all of the money this game brings in doesn't go to the game. They get a budget based on revenue but its not a 1:1 ratio.) The minute they went on the f2p bit it became nothing but a veiled complaint thread about the limits on nonsubscribers.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Tilvius]

I think the point was made regarding sub payments a few posts back now... Lets move on now.

 

The question that needs to be answered is can this games current business model change to a B2P like I mentioned in my previous post or is stuck like this for the next 10 years?

[Ghisallo]

I think the point was made regarding sub payments a few posts back now... Lets move on now.

 

The question that needs to be answered is can this games current business model change to a B2P like I mentioned in my previous post or is stuck like this for the next 10 years?

 

While I appreciate you wanting an answer to your question last I checked you are not the moderator and so people can continue to debate points other than yours.

 

To answer your question though... No it wouldn't work...

 

First ESO is NOT going B2P the way GW2 has been. They are dropping the subscription requirement... That said if you do subscribe you are considered ESO Plus. This grants subscribers an all-access pass to additional areas, a monthly allowance of in-game funds, plus faster progression for their characters and equipment. Sound familiar? Additionally that change is being driven by the fact it is cross platform. Since players already have to cough over money to Sony or Microsoft to play having the Subscription was seen as too much by some players BUT people are still going to get very similar benefits to subbing like SWTOR. So even then the change is driven by a different mechanism.

 

As for GW2, the only game you noted that is truly just B2P, it is an apples and oranges comparison. Because of the cut scenes with full voice acting SWTOR simply costs more to develop. Also as flawed as its engine is the general development has higher costs as the graphics and animations are more complicated (note I did not say "better" but rather more complicated.) Also the lack of multitude of instances GW2 has means less issues in terms of server configuration etc. Higher expense requires more revenue. If you want a game to be B2P you basically have to design it to be b2p.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Anaesha]

OK Just for reference SWTOR's production cost for the base game (not including the expansions and other additions) was roughly 150 to 200 Million dollars.

[XiamaraSimi]

EQ I could have sworn was 14.99 from the jump.

 

Actually, when it launched, EQ was 9.89 due to it being made by Verrant/989 Studios... they did bump it up later though.

Edited March 9, 2015 by XiamaraSimi

[Ghisallo]

Actually, when it launched, EQ was 9.89 due to it being made by Verrant/989 Studios... they did bump it up later though.

 

Okey doke... then in 2004 EQ2 comes out at the 14.99 price point. Thanks for the link :-)

[ekwalizer]

Uh. What? That's less than the cost of one movie night. That's 1/10 of the cost of my TV package that I cut out. That's about 5 cups of starbucks a month. If the $15 is hard to come by, gaming should probably be the last thing on your list...

 

 

Exactly, it comes out to $0.50/per day. People can't "afford" that but $200-400 is no problem for them right?

 

To the OP, I have a STO LT account, I bought it pre-release because it made financial sense at the time. But that purchase makes NO sense now that the game is a pure F2P game with no restrictions. Plus, there was a LONG window post-launch where that game failed hard. It is a good game now, but it took a few years to get tot hat point.

[Happy_Puppy]

Tbh it seems a disingenuous argument. They talk about an expensive LTS and then go on about all the downsides for someone who chooses to go the f2p or preferred route for a vast majority of the thread. In essence it seems like a proper forming of the argument would be "hey you guys willing to be subscribers...if you paided 250 bucks no front then us f2p players would actually have unrestricted f2p access. Since a lot of can't afford to pay to play it would be much appreciated if you subsidized our play.

 

First that's not the point of f2p. F2p is the greatest con in the history of gaming. The whole point of f2p is to get you in the door in the hopes that you get hooked into one of the revenue streams. That's it. Second it was such a transparent attempt at using guilt and emotion... The whole "a lot of people can't...." Plus the "I know it's a lot of money but..."

 

 

Lets narrow these paragraphs down....

 

SWTOR'S f2p is the biggest con.

 

Never winter nights: f2p has full access to all game play areas, no restrictions. Pay aspect is for cosmetic and high end crafting and qul life items such as more character slots bank slots etc. Can use in game currency to buy items out of cash ship in a player trade market.

 

Star Trek Online: f2p has full access to game content. Pay aspect ship types, qul life such as larger bank tabs and character tabs. Though free end game ships are ready available though in game events for free. Has a player exchange allowing players to use in game currency to buy cash store tokens.

 

Both NWN and STO you can if you grind unlock and buy anything if you put the time in to it. Players may also sell some items from the cash ship in the exchange. ALL expansions are free.

 

Guild Wars 2: one time purchases, all game aspects free. Cash shop Is cosmetic. In game bi-monthly content added. 1st paid expansions is releasing this year

 

Now Swtor: F2P, leveling speed restricted, can only run 3 flashpoints a week unless you pay, can only pvp 3x a week unless you pay, have to pay to equip end game gear, have to pay to unlock UI features, have to pay to unlock titles, have to pay to self rez, have to play to unlock bank slots, have to play to run operations, have to play to unlock credit limit Subs have to pay to change looks. NO player exchange to buy cash shop tokens. Items maybe sold in normal exchange.

 

SWTOR is the most restrictive f2p mmo I have played. Compared to GW2 its content it pretty slow. VS STO and NWN its patch's are extremely slow.

 

Why is SWTOR content so slow and in some cases much smaller then these less restrictive MMO's... maybe its the game engine is much harder to program for there for changes and creating new content requires more man hours? I don't know... Or EA/BIOWARE has cut back and slowed support for SWTOR so much they do not have the man power to release content in a timely manor. Who knows....

 

SWTOR would be better off easing restrictions on the core game, make people pay for the expansions as a one time investment that unlocks all the features of that expansion. I really hope they would do this pre Episode VII as we will be getting a influx of new players when the new movie comes out.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Happy_Puppy

[jedip_enguin]

So to be more successful Swtor should copy less successful games?

 

Yes, I can see why that would seem like a totally rational plan...

 

...if you're an idiot.

[Ratajack]

Lets narrow these paragraphs down....

 

SWTOR'S f2p is the biggest con.

 

Never winter nights: f2p has full access to all game play areas, no restrictions. Pay aspect is for cosmetic and high end crafting and qul life items such as more character slots bank slots etc. Can use in game currency to buy items out of cash ship in a player trade market.

 

Star Trek Online: f2p has full access to game content. Pay aspect ship types, qul life such as larger bank tabs and character tabs. Though free end game ships are ready available though in game events for free. Has a player exchange allowing players to use in game currency to buy cash store tokens.

 

Both NWN and STO you can if you grind unlock and buy anything if you put the time in to it. Players may also sell some items from the cash ship in the exchange. ALL expansions are free.

 

Guild Wars 2: one time purchases, all game aspects free. Cash shop Is cosmetic. In game bi-monthly content added. 1st paid expansions is releasing this year

 

Now Swtor: F2P, leveling speed restricted, can only run 3 flashpoints a week unless you pay, can only pvp 3x a week unless you pay, have to pay to equip end game gear, have to pay to unlock UI features, have to pay to unlock titles, have to pay to self rez, have to play to unlock bank slots, have to play to run operations, have to play to unlock credit limit Subs have to pay to change looks. NO player exchange to buy cash shop tokens. Items maybe sold in normal exchange.

 

SWTOR is the most restrictive f2p mmo I have played. Compared to GW2 its content it pretty slow. VS STO and NWN its patch's are extremely slow.

 

Why is SWTOR content so slow and in some cases much smaller then these less restrictive MMO's... maybe its the game engine is much harder to program for there for changes and creating new content requires more man hours? I don't know... Or EA/BIOWARE has cut back and slowed support for SWTOR so much they do not have the man power to release content in a timely manor. Who knows....

 

SWTOR would be better off easing restrictions on the core game, make people pay for the expansions as a one time investment that unlocks all the features of that expansion. I really hope they would do this pre Episode VII as we will be getting a influx of new players when the new movie comes out.

 

 

This sounds like it translates to "I want all the perks of subscribing WITHOUT paying" or "I want to play the whole game WITHOUT paying a cent."

 

 

If you want the perks of subscribing, then pay the minimal cost of $15/month.

 

If you are in such a financial bind that $15/month would break you, then maybe you should not be focusing on video games.

[Happy_Puppy]

...if you're an idiot.

 

That's sums you up well.. given STO and GW2 has more accounts then SWTOR

[Happy_Puppy]

This sounds like it translates to "I want all the perks of subscribing WITHOUT paying" or "I want to play the whole game WITHOUT paying a cent."

 

 

If you want the perks of subscribing, then pay the minimal cost of $15/month.

 

If you are in such a financial bind that $15/month would break you, then maybe you should not be focusing on video games.

 

Well if you read other post instead of ASSuming you would of read that I am a sub....

 

Its not about perks for being a sub its about maintaining players... NO game should charge for simple things like skill bars or being able to equip gear. It's stupid nickel and diming..

[Ratajack]

That's sums you up well.. given STO and GW2 has more accounts then SWTOR

 

Having more accounts does not necessarily translate into more revenue, since not all accounts are active and not all active accounts are generating revenue. I'm sure there are more than a few accounts in those F2P games that are not spending a single dime to play, yet they are leeching the benefits of those players that DO actually contribute financially.

[Ratajack]

Well if you read other post instead of ASSuming you would of read that I am a sub....

 

Its not about perks for being a sub its about maintaining players... NO game should charge for simple things like skill bars or being able to equip gear. It's stupid nickel and diming..

 

I never assumed that you were not a sub, yet you ASSumed that I did. Nowhere did I say that you were not a sub. You might try taking your own advice and actually READING the posts.

 

You are a sub bnow, but how long would you remain a sub if BW were to do as you "suggest" and just give everything to the F2P's and preferred leaving no incentive to subscribe?

 

Would you really continue to subscribe if you got all the benefits that subscribing provides you now without having to pay that pesky $15/month? I highly doubt that you would.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Ratajack

[jedip_enguin]

That's sums you up well.. given STO and GW2 has more accounts then SWTOR[/QUOTe]

 

Number of accounts mean nothing, number of dollars do.

[Anaesha]

Created accounts don't mean jack in my mind it's how many active accounts that really matter for example a game can have 8 million created accounts and only 3 million of those accounts are active but given that the 8 million number looks better they advertise 8 million members. Edited March 10, 2015 by Anaesha

[Ghisallo]

Lets narrow these paragraphs down....

 

.

 

Actually I would say it is the most upfront. They don't do shady stuff like other companies saying "no traps and tricks" (yes I am looking at you Trion) and then in the fine print have things like "u have to grind for weels or months to unlock an equipment slot... you have to pay for access to a standard ship etc.

 

Believe me I used to say exactly what you said in defense of other models...then I said "hey SWTOR is honest about how they view f2p...it is simply a gateway in the hopes they hook people into going preferred or subscribers, rather than a system that obfuscates."

 

Hell look at ESO...they have been big in pushing "we are going b2p" BUT when you ead the fine print the model is LITTLE different. Google Star Trek on-line and half the time you get sent to their OLD web site...when you go to the new site you can't even find the damn matrix... you need to get the matrix off the fan sites.

 

Being transparent means a lot to me.

 

On top of that when it comes to the games you mentioned they are NOT apples to apples comparions. GW2 was designed to be b2p. You can't apply the same rules to a game not designed as such. NWN (which I closed tested) was also VERY different. No end game at launch, no cut scenes, and if you don't use their cash shop you were screwed (at least at launch). Maybe it changed but at launch NWN was that way. It alkso again had a MUCH smaller budget and was designed from the ground up to be f2p.

 

Star trek Online... was a failure from the jump and while you can play the game without paying... yes, you miss out on a lot and imo at least of the three it is the furtherest from what we call a AAA game (and I was a person who liked that company enough in the beginning that I paid for a LTS to their other game.) In concept STO was great, they hyped their "concept" to the level of reality and it failed HARD...harder than any other hyped game I can think of tbh.

 

STO is the only game even close to an apples to apples comparison because development budget + design is intimately connected to the initial financial model.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Elracor]

Are you really that dense? I mean not be a jerk here.. but read your own bloody link....

 

How about you read it yourself?

 

it says quote "Top Subscription based games 2013" They were linking the revenue of only subscription based games of the fiscal year.. as I already tried to explain to you that means it was in the physical year of 2012.

 

No? If it was only subscription based games LotrO wouldn't be on the list as it went F2P in 2010, and nowhere does it say "fiscal".

 

Out side source have no indicator of player base.. if you think that your deluded.

 

No more deluded than you when you think you can determine bigger playerbase by looking at the hubs.

 

That's like arguing that the whining of the forums is a indication of how the bulk of the player base feel about the game when in truth the forums groupies and trolls are a fractions of the player base. Most people who are content with the game do not come to the forums to whine about it.

 

No, that's not the same at all. Nice try though.

 

All you can go by is what the company's have released and STO has more accounts then swtor..

 

Not really. We know SWTOR had over 1.7 million subscribers at Feb '12: http://www.swtor.com/info/news/press-release/20120201

... Star Wars: The Old Republic has sold over 2 million copies, with a thriving base of over 1.7 million active subscribers ....

According to SWTOR March '13 they got more than 2 million new accounts since it went F2P. http://www.swtor.com/info/news/blog/20130321

... Since launch of the Free-to-Play option we have had over 2 million new accounts created and have thousands of new players jumping in every single day...

That alone is over 3.7 million accounts after about 1.5 years, a lot more than STOs 2.5 million over 5 years.

 

Lastly, there's this: http://www.swtorstyles.com/home/category/cantina%20tour%20info

From Jeff Hickman's introduction: 10 million + account created. 1 million + playing monthly."

Edited March 10, 2015 by MFollin

[Happy_Puppy]

Created accounts don't mean jack in my mind it's how many active accounts that really matter for example a game can have 8 million created accounts and only 3 million of those accounts are active but given that the 8 million number looks better they advertise 8 million members.

 

This is was my point earlier.. they keep trying to argue that some how STO or GW2 are failed games then use magic math to justify it.

 

such as claiming 10 million accounts.. that's more then WoW and SWTOR has not even come close to WoW numbers.

 

some numbers like GW2 sold only 3 million copy's in there 1st year.. more then any mmo starting year. Are just fact... SWTOR peak was at launch yet people try to pull numbers out of thin air.

[Happy_Puppy]

Actually I would say it is the most upfront. They don't do shady stuff like other companies saying "no traps and tricks" (yes I am looking at you Trion) and then in the fine print have things like "u have to grind for weels or months to unlock an equipment slot... you have to pay for access to a standard ship etc.

 

Believe me I used to say exactly what you said in defense of other models...then I said "hey SWTOR is honest about how they view f2p...it is simply a gateway in the hopes they hook people into going preferred or subscribers, rather than a system that obfuscates."

 

Hell look at ESO...they have been big in pushing "we are going b2p" BUT when you ead the fine print the model is LITTLE different. Google Star Trek on-line and half the time you get sent to their OLD web site...when you go to the new site you can't even find the damn matrix... you need to get the matrix off the fan sites.

 

Being transparent means a lot to me.

 

On top of that when it comes to the games you mentioned they are NOT apples to apples comparions. GW2 was designed to be b2p. You can't apply the same rules to a game not designed as such. NWN (which I closed tested) was also VERY different. No end game at launch, no cut scenes, and if you don't use their cash shop you were screwed (at least at launch). Maybe it changed but at launch NWN was that way. It alkso again had a MUCH smaller budget and was designed from the ground up to be f2p.

 

Star trek Online... was a failure from the jump and while you can play the game without paying... yes, you miss out on a lot and imo at least of the three it is the furtherest from what we call a AAA game (and I was a person who liked that company enough in the beginning that I paid for a LTS to their other game.) In concept STO was great, they hyped their "concept" to the level of reality and it failed HARD...harder than any other hyped game I can think of tbh.

 

STO is the only game even close to an apples to apples comparison because development budget + design is intimately connected to the initial financial model.

 

ESO was a steaming pile of.. well crap. Also ESO was just like SWTOR at launch.. it was going to be SUB only and are having to retool to F2P

 

PW made a hub for all there games which is ARC just because they started a new hub but have the older stites still up does not mean bait and switch... not sure how you came to that conclusion. Also name one ship has gear restrictions in STO? Here is a hint there is none. You can slap a MK14 weapon on a tier 4 just as you can at tier 6...

 

Also you can get free Tier 6 and tier 5 ships so no you do not have to grind and grind, in fact in the last 2 months they have given away through in game events a T-6 cruiser and carrier that were fleet level.. and the expansion for T-6 just came out.. they already gave away 2 free to any who played the events. You get a free ships all the way up to T-4 just from leveling and they are ample for any basic content. Sounds like you do not even play.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Happy_Puppy

[Happy_Puppy]

How about you read it yourself?

 

 

 

No? If it was only subscription based games LotrO wouldn't be on the list as it went F2P in 2010, and nowhere does it say "fiscal".

 

 

 

No more deluded than you when you think you can determine bigger playerbase by looking at the hubs.

 

 

 

No, that's not the same at all. Nice try though.

 

 

 

Not really. We know SWTOR had over 1.7 million subscribers at Feb '12: http://www.swtor.com/info/news/press-release/20120201

 

According to SWTOR March '13 they got more than 2 million new accounts since it went F2P. http://www.swtor.com/info/news/blog/20130321

 

That alone is over 3.7 million accounts after about 1.5 years, a lot more than STOs 2.5 million over 5 years.

 

Lastly, there's this: http://www.swtorstyles.com/home/category/cantina%20tour%20info

 

I'm not going to argue about the difference between physical and Fiscal.. if is a annual report its fiscal year.

If you read the article they had LOTRO up there as it had SUB + MICRO earning listed. Also Perfect World does not release individual game earnings. So there is no way to list STO or any other of the PW games.

 

Also where the hell are you getting 2.5mil for sto over 5 years.. more made up information on your part. Given there own release on there 4 your celebration with 3.2 million and it was at 3.5 over a year ago.

 

Thanks for quoting EA made up BS... so they go from 3.5 total to 10 mil... ya BS.. 10 million.. what a load of crap.. that's not even wow numbers anymore. Honestly this quote is to funny " From Jeff Hickman's introduction: 10 million + account created. 1 million + playing monthly." But hey keep sniffing what your sniffing you believe that.