Lifetime Memebership For SWTOR/F2P-Preferred status Rant

[Ghisallo]

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.

 

Number of boxes sold in the first year means nothing....what matters is revenue..

 

So lets look at 2013 earnings SWTOR 165 million (according to super data research inc)

 

So from NCSoft's own financials GW2 made 32 million (GW2 actually was losing income regularly until they launched in China last year... going into that market finally reversed the trend. SWTOR is not officially released in China btw)

 

I can't find numbers for STO seperately but Perfect world entertainment made 500 million for all of 2013. DOTA2 alone had over 100 million in microtransactions revenue. Break out all the other games and STO falls short too.

 

Have these games failed? Maybe maybe not. But is SWTOR winning the money game in the markets they share? Certainly appears so.

 

So to quote ben Kenobi..."it all depends on your point of view." i still like Rift tbh. Subbed to it, still in a guild over there. BUT I have to admit it makes less money than SWTOR and in the business world it doesn't matter what I like...it matters what is making money. With that in mind do you actually think that EA/Bioware is going to change things when they are making A LOT more money with their current model? Hell no.

 

Oh and yeah... in STO yeah I can grind the crap out of stuff and eventually get stuff... not as good though. All they did is EXACTLY what Trion did...they make it so it LOOKS like you can do everything without spending a dime...BUT if you spend a dime you get not only faster but better. Simply because you are blind to STO's Con because it is less in your face doesn't make it any less of a con...it just means you would rather be conned and not know it than have the con artist be straight with ya.

 

It's the same game. Whether you play it with 3 shells, 3 cups or 3 card monty. Just a different look.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Happy_Puppy]

Number of boxes sold in the first year means nothing....what matters is revenue..

 

So lets look at 2013 earnings SWTOR 165 million (according to super data research inc)

 

So from NCSoft's own financials GW2 made 32 million (GW2 actually was losing income regularly until they launched in China last year... going into that market finally reversed the trend. SWTOR is not officially released in China btw)

 

I can't find numbers for STO seperately but Perfect world entertainment made 500 million for all of 2013. DOTA2 alone had over 100 million in microtransactions revenue. Break out all the other games and STO falls short too.

 

Have these games failed? Maybe maybe not. But is SWTOR winning the money game in the markets they share? Certainly appears so.

 

So to quote ben Kenobi..."it all depends on your point of view."

 

Oh and yeah... in STO yeah I can grind the crap out of stuff and eventually get stuff... not as good though. All they did is EXACTLY what Trion did...they make it so it LOOKS like you can do everything without spending a dime...BUT if you spend a dime you get not only faster but better.

 

It's the same game. Whether you play it with 3 shells, 3 cups or 3 card monty. Just a different look.

 

What the.. plz shut up about can get it better.. Z store items are not better.. as I have stated but seem to be talking to brick walls. As already pointed out the Free event ships have higher stats then any store bought ships /facepalm

 

2013 was 139 mil not 169 for swtor http://www.swtorstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/top-10-superdata.jpg

 

GW2 is not a sub based game.. they were mentioned as a game that's not sub based and is a mmorpg that release 10x content as SWTOR.. while you praise SWTOR your being ripped off by EA/Bioware at the same time. If SWTOR is such a prize earning mmo then why on earth is bug fixs, balance changes and content so much worse then these other games that you claim have a fraction of the income... hmmm

 

Also GW2 isn't losing money, Wildstar is... not sure where you getting GW2 been losing money... it made enough money from release to run for years. 2013 shows GW2 as net profit http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-05-13-ncsoft-profits-up-yoy-but-down-on-last-quarter

 

Wildstar on the other hand has been costing NCsoft.. wildstar has been in the red.

 

The issue with SWTOR is players paying into a game not getting the same level of service as other F2P games. Some of the restrictions are just.. stupid such as UI skill bars, the in ability to rez when you die, gear lock out and flashpoint / pvp limits.

 

If SWTOR eased up.. not remove but eased up on some of those restrictions as well as start putting out timely content and patch's they will increase there player count. This is important for the end of this year.. there will be many more new players do to the Star Wars Episode VII. Last thing you want is to turn off new players with illogical restrictions. The 1-50 content should be free access.. let them get addicted 1st then charge to carry on if they do not sub by then.

[Ratajack]

No there are no weapons that are superior to free weapons in game.... the fact you even ask this tell me how out of touch you are with STO.

 

The store bought ships even the newest T-6 ships have less stats then the Free T-6 ships as the free ones have been boosted to fleet level ships and the store bought ships are standard T-6 ships. So no the reason to buy a T-6 ship is cosmetic not because they are better.

 

Even T-5u ships that are upgraded pre expansion ships have higher stats then standard T-6 ships. It wont be until they release fleet T-6 ships that T-6 will have greater stats then last expansions upgraded ships. Then the store ones will be same level as the free T-6 ships are now.

 

In example on Z-Store ship weapon. The San Palo Quad cannon. Sure it levels up with you but its damage out put is less then a Mark 12 VR Dual heavy cannon with Crit D mods x 3, something that is a free weapon system. The only reason to use the Quad cannons is for looks (they do look cool when firing) or for role playing reasons. If you are min maxing your ship the Dual quad cannon are a dps loss.

 

Also you can not buy "weapons" in the store there are a few of them that are "specials" on certain ships and all of them are DPS loss vs in game weapons.. they just have neat effects or they level up with your ship making it more convenient as you level. But all in game weapons max out with higher dps.

 

It has been a while since I played. Unless things have changed, though, the ships available for purchase using money generally have superior stats and additional crew slots/console stations compared to the "free" in game versions of those ships. Many come with universal consoles or special weapons that are unavailable elsewhere. Universal consoles also have the advantage of being able to be placed in any type of console slot--tactical, engineering or science.

 

Do you still want to claim that the "free" in game ships are not inferior to those purchased from the z-store using cash?

 

Again, I am not saying that SWTOR is a better game than STO, but STO is much more P2W than SWTOR. If you do not want to "gimp" yourself, then it behooves you to purchase the superior ships from the z-store.

[Ratajack]

What the.. plz shut up about can get it better.. Z store items are not better.. as I have stated but seem to be talking to brick walls. As already pointed out the Free event ships have higher stats then any store bought ships /facepalm

 

Did you not say that those "free" ships from the events have no z-store version? That kind of invalidates those as examples of "free, available in game ships"being better than those purchased on the z-store, don't you think?

 

I might be wrong, but as I recall, most of the ships, if not all of the ships, that are available for "free" in game that have a z-store version are inferior to that z-store version. I believe that is the point that the poster to whom you responded was making.

 

2013 was 139 mil not 169 for swtor http://www.swtorstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/top-10-superdata.jpg

 

GW2 is not a sub based game.. they were mentioned as a game that's not sub based and is a mmorpg that release 10x content as SWTOR.. while you praise SWTOR your being ripped off by EA/Bioware at the same time. If SWTOR is such a prize earning mmo then why on earth is bug fixs, balance changes and content so much worse then these other games that you claim have a fraction of the income... hmmm

 

Also GW2 isn't losing money, Wildstar is... not sure where you getting GW2 been losing money... it made enough money from release to run for years. 2013 shows GW2 as net profit http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-05-13-ncsoft-profits-up-yoy-but-down-on-last-quarter

 

Wildstar on the other hand has been costing NCsoft.. wildstar has been in the red.

 

The issue with SWTOR is players paying into a game not getting the same level of service as other F2P games. Some of the restrictions are just.. stupid such as UI skill bars, the in ability to rez when you die, gear lock out and flashpoint / pvp limits.

 

If SWTOR eased up.. not remove but eased up on some of those restrictions as well as start putting out timely content and patch's they will increase there player count. This is important for the end of this year.. there will be many more new players do to the Star Wars Episode VII. Last thing you want is to turn off new players with illogical restrictions. The 1-50 content should be free access.. let them get addicted 1st then charge to carry on if they do not sub by then.

 

Again, this sounds an awful lot like "let me play the game with far fewer restrictions (preferably NO restrictions) without making me pay the subscription" to me.

[gbrumback]

Let's face reality here, comparing two different MMO's is 90%-95% personal opinion. And information like number of accounts can be very misleading. For example, I used to pkay WoW, I haven't played it since before SWTOR launched, and haven't paid my sub since I quit actually playing it. But I still get emails from Blizzard with my character names in them asking me to come back. That implies they still have not deleted my account, and therefore get to 'count' it as an account in their numbers. If you really want accurate numbers on popularity of a MMO, the companies would have to release the actual number of active accounts, probably quarterly. Otherwise it is all just skewed results that mean nothing.

 

As to the LTS subscription, I see a massive con (as in opposite of pro, not a scam) in that it might theoretically kill the game. If they offered a LTS for $300, that would be a slight discount on 24 months of monthly sub. If a bulk of the users took them up on it, it would be a huge influx of cash now. But, long term it would have a devastating effect on revenue. Imagine in 2 years what the cuts to the dev team would be if they were relying only on the cash shop for operating expenses. We might hear, "We were going to release a new xpax, but we had to layoff most of our devs due to financial reasons." I'm not saying it would happen, just that it is a possibility.

 

Also, I fear the implementation of LTS, and the increased reliance on microtransactions, would make everything new be only a CM item. Or worse, we truly end up with P2W. "Hey look, all new 206 Armoring, Mods, Enhacements, only 100CC each."

 

Lastly, in any MMO LTS is a gamble for the consumer. If I paid $300 tomorrow and the game ran for 3 more years, I got a great deal. If the unexpected happens and BW shuts it down in 6 months, I would be absolutely livid. And would probably swear off any EA/BW product gor the rest of my life. Which also makes it a small gamble for the company.

 

Not saying any of this stuff would happen, it's all just hypothetical food for thought.

 

On a final note, F2P get treated better than any of the handfull of MMO's I've played in. Quite a few had level caps and/or area restrictions. It would be like SWTOR saying, 'Sorry, in order to travel beyond Nar Shaddaa you must be a subscriber.' I've actually played games where you could't leave the starting area (Tython for ex.) as a F2P'er. So, I think the F2P crowd here has it pretty darn good. Preferred is kind of a grey area since I have personally never seen an MMO with 3 tiers of access.

[FerkWork]

This thread is silly. SWTOR will never ease up on restrictions or introduce Life time sub. No it won't kill the game. If you don't like it then play something else. I can't force you to play a game. Which it is. A game.

[Happy_Puppy]

Did you not say that those "free" ships from the events have no z-store version? That kind of invalidates those as examples of "free, available in game ships"being better than those purchased on the z-store, don't you think?

 

I might be wrong, but as I recall, most of the ships, if not all of the ships, that are available for "free" in game that have a z-store version are inferior to that z-store version. I believe that is the point that the poster to whom you responded was making.

 

 

 

Again, this sounds an awful lot like "let me play the game with far fewer restrictions (preferably NO restrictions) without making me pay the subscription" to me.

 

oh good lord I'm A SWTOR Subscriber!!

as far as STO

No they do not have a in store version..

 

Its about cosmetic appearance. All ships have stat allocations. Goes like this in general.

 

All admiral rank ships are T-4 or greater.

 

T-4 base ship free to all when you level up have Z store variants

 

T-5 are 10% better stats with + 1 console and bridge crew member there are T-5 Z store ships and lock box ships all have the same stats per there class.

 

Fleet T-5 you must be part of or invited to a fleet the fleet must be of a certain level. You can upgrade a T-5 to Fleet T-5 if you own the Z-store version with a upgrade token as a account wide unlock or you can use 4 unlock tokens and buy the ship for s single toon with out owning the base ship. These upgrade tokens can be bought from the Z store or the exchange with credits. They have +10% stats and +1 console vs T-5

 

Fleet and Regular T-5-U upgrades this is the final upgrade for T-5 there stats are 10% better then T-5 fleet and Fleet T-5 ships have 10% better stats + 1 console over base T-6 ships. Upgrades are bought with z store or credits off the exchange.

 

T-6 ships are 10% better stats then Fleet Tier 5 must be bought from Z store.

 

Fleet T-6 ships, the only way to get these ships right now is through lock boxes or as Free rewards during in game events. These ships have 10% better stats then T-6 + 1 console. They are the most powerful stat wise in game and again they were free to all players through events. NO player can buy directly a Fleet T-6 ship at this time only as a luck role from a lock box or from in game events.

 

Before they had T-6 ships they would have events that gave away Fleet T-5 ships that were equal stats as any other fleet t-5.

 

So no its not P2W at all. Free players can get the same level and right better level ships then you can buy directly.

[Happy_Puppy]

Did you not say that those "free" ships from the events have no z-store version? That kind of invalidates those as examples of "free, available in game ships"being better than those purchased on the z-store, don't you think?

 

I might be wrong, but as I recall, most of the ships, if not all of the ships, that are available for "free" in game that have a z-store version are inferior to that z-store version. I believe that is the point that the poster to whom you responded was making.

 

umm.. what type of logic is that.. and no I said that the free event ships are more powerful then anything you can directly buy. The z store ships about the look of the ships not effectiveness.

 

Again, this sounds an awful lot like "let me play the game with far fewer restrictions (preferably NO restrictions) without making me pay the subscription" to me.

 

You swear some of you answer with out reading the whole post....

 

never said no restrictions what I said was easy them on the core game.. the 1-50 part of it. Allow f2p to run any number flashpoints/pvp and gear up anything level 50 or lower.. then start adding restrictions on the expansion content.

[Happy_Puppy]

Let's face reality here, comparing two different MMO's is 90%-95% personal opinion. And information like number of accounts can be very misleading. For example, I used to pkay WoW, I haven't played it since before SWTOR launched, and haven't paid my sub since I quit actually playing it. But I still get emails from Blizzard with my character names in them asking me to come back. That implies they still have not deleted my account, and therefore get to 'count' it as an account in their numbers. If you really want accurate numbers on popularity of a MMO, the companies would have to release the actual number of active accounts, probably quarterly. Otherwise it is all just skewed results that mean nothing.

 

As to the LTS subscription, I see a massive con (as in opposite of pro, not a scam) in that it might theoretically kill the game. If they offered a LTS for $300, that would be a slight discount on 24 months of monthly sub. If a bulk of the users took them up on it, it would be a huge influx of cash now. But, long term it would have a devastating effect on revenue. Imagine in 2 years what the cuts to the dev team would be if they were relying only on the cash shop for operating expenses. We might hear, "We were going to release a new xpax, but we had to layoff most of our devs due to financial reasons." I'm not saying it would happen, just that it is a possibility.

 

Also, I fear the implementation of LTS, and the increased reliance on microtransactions, would make everything new be only a CM item. Or worse, we truly end up with P2W. "Hey look, all new 206 Armoring, Mods, Enhacements, only 100CC each."

 

Lastly, in any MMO LTS is a gamble for the consumer. If I paid $300 tomorrow and the game ran for 3 more years, I got a great deal. If the unexpected happens and BW shuts it down in 6 months, I would be absolutely livid. And would probably swear off any EA/BW product gor the rest of my life. Which also makes it a small gamble for the company.

 

Not saying any of this stuff would happen, it's all just hypothetical food for thought.

 

On a final note, F2P get treated better than any of the handfull of MMO's I've played in. Quite a few had level caps and/or area restrictions. It would be like SWTOR saying, 'Sorry, in order to travel beyond Nar Shaddaa you must be a subscriber.' I've actually played games where you could't leave the starting area (Tython for ex.) as a F2P'er. So, I think the F2P crowd here has it pretty darn good. Preferred is kind of a grey area since I have personally never seen an MMO with 3 tiers of access.

 

Your right its a gamble.. but one that the buyer is aware of. Also not many would be buying it. It's just a option for some.. most wouldn't.

 

Its like the collectors edition.. I paid for it.. I gambled that they would support the CE in game store.. I lost no biggie.. but not everyone was going to buy a CE version of the game but some did. Same goes with LTS.. also crank the price up to $500 now you just got them to pre pay for over 3 years... but it wouldn't that huge a seller.

 

SWTOR has the most restrictive F2P of all the ones I have played. ones that limit you to starting zone are not free to play.. they are free to try.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Happy_Puppy

[Ratajack]

You swear some of you answer with out reading the whole post....

 

never said no restrictions what I said was easy them on the core game.. the 1-50 part of it. Allow f2p to run any number flashpoints/pvp and gear up anything level 50 or lower.. then start adding restrictions on the expansion content.

 

I think you are conveniently ignoring the fact that F2P players have not paid one single cent to support the game and are simply leeching off the support of others. While preferred players may have been subscribers at one point, they are are no longer paying to support the game and are now leeching off the support of others. I'm sure that at least some of the preferred players have never even subscribed since a simple $5 purchase will raise you from F2P to preferred.

 

I think the current restrictions are fine the way they are. I think of the F2P and preferred status as more of an EXTENDED "free to try", rather than cap those not paying the subscription at level 20, for example.

 

The restrictions do not prevent anyone from playing the game up to level 50 and seeing the stories.

 

I see no reason why BW should ease up or lift restrictions on leeches.

 

If you want to play with fewer restrictions, then a simple one time $5 purchase of CC's will raise you to preferred status. If you want to play with no restrictions, then $15 month is cheap for the value. Again, if $15 month will break you, then I would think that you priorities should be focused on things other than video games.

[Ratajack]

oh good lord I'm A SWTOR Subscriber!!

as far as STO

No they do not have a in store version..

 

Its about cosmetic appearance. All ships have stat allocations. Goes like this in general.

 

All admiral rank ships are T-4 or greater.

 

T-4 base ship free to all when you level up have Z store variants

 

T-5 are 10% better stats with + 1 console and bridge crew member there are T-5 Z store ships and lock box ships all have the same stats per there class.

 

Fleet T-5 you must be part of or invited to a fleet the fleet must be of a certain level. You can upgrade a T-5 to Fleet T-5 if you own the Z-store version with a upgrade token as a account wide unlock or you can use 4 unlock tokens and buy the ship for s single toon with out owning the base ship. These upgrade tokens can be bought from the Z store or the exchange with credits. They have +10% stats and +1 console vs T-5

 

Fleet and Regular T-5-U upgrades this is the final upgrade for T-5 there stats are 10% better then T-5 fleet and Fleet T-5 ships have 10% better stats + 1 console over base T-6 ships. Upgrades are bought with z store or credits off the exchange.

 

T-6 ships are 10% better stats then Fleet Tier 5 must be bought from Z store.

 

Fleet T-6 ships, the only way to get these ships right now is through lock boxes or as Free rewards during in game events. These ships have 10% better stats then T-6 + 1 console. They are the most powerful stat wise in game and again they were free to all players through events. NO player can buy directly a Fleet T-6 ship at this time only as a luck role from a lock box or from in game events.

 

Before they had T-6 ships they would have events that gave away Fleet T-5 ships that were equal stats as any other fleet t-5.

 

So no its not P2W at all. Free players can get the same level and right better level ships then you can buy directly.

 

Ok. Now you are showing yourself to either be completely clueless about the z-store (which would be hysterically ironic, given your attacks on those who point out the P2W factor of STO) or you are deliberately lying to us.

 

Let's look at a few ships available from the z-store:

 

Here is the standard "free" in game version:

 

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Cruiser_%28Federation%29

 

Now the z-store version of the same level ship:

 

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Cruiser_Refit

 

Now a level 4 ship:

 

First the "free" in game version:

 

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Tactical_Escort

 

Now, the z-store version of the same level ship:

 

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Tactical_Escort_Refit

 

 

 

Since you were so specific in mentioning class 4 ships and above, let's look at a class 5 ship:

 

First, the "free" in game version:

 

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Assault_Cruiser

 

Here is the P2W version from the store:

 

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Assault_Cruiser_Refit

 

Do you not see the difference between the "free" ships and the P2W version of the same ships? They even point out the differences on the page for each ship by telling you what the P2W version gives you over the standard version.

 

 

The same goes for MOST, if not all, of the ships available from the z-store. The Z-store ships are NOT simply cosmetic differences, they are SUPERIOR to the "free" versions available in game.

 

The only reason your precious carrier is "better" than anything available in the store is that there is not yet a version available from the store.

[Happy_Puppy]

Ok. Now you are showing yourself to either be completely clueless about the z-store (which would be hysterically ironic, given your attacks on those who point out the P2W factor of STO) or you are deliberately lying to us.

 

Let's look at a few ships available from the z-store:

 

Here is the standard "free" in game version:

 

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Cruiser_%28Federation%29

 

Now the z-store version of the same level ship:

 

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Cruiser_Refit

 

Now a level 4 ship:

 

First the "free" in game version:

 

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Tactical_Escort

 

Now, the z-store version of the same level ship:

 

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Tactical_Escort_Refit

 

 

 

Since you were so specific in mentioning class 4 ships and above, let's look at a class 5 ship:

 

First, the "free" in game version:

 

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Assault_Cruiser

 

Here is the P2W version from the store:

 

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Assault_Cruiser_Refit

 

Do you not see the difference between the "free" ships and the P2W version of the same ships? They even point out the differences on the page for each ship by telling you what the P2W version gives you over the standard version.

 

 

The same goes for MOST, if not all, of the ships available from the z-store. The Z-store ships are NOT simply cosmetic differences, they are SUPERIOR to the "free" versions available in game.

 

The only reason your precious carrier is "better" than anything available in the store is that there is not yet a version available from the store.

 

 

T-4 is NOT END GAME!! its a leveling ship.

 

T-6 is end game.. the highest stat end game ships can NOT be bought from the Z-Store.

 

Such as the store bought

 

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Guardian_Cruiser

 

vs the free event ship

 

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Kobali_Samsar_Cruiser

 

the free event ship has more hull, more consoles then the store bought T-6 ships, they are both tank cruisers and the FREE one has higher stats then the store version.

 

The fact you are arguing this shows how ignorant you are on STO.

 

PS: I showed T-4 and up showing the generational difference of the ships... T4 was the basic admiral ships from 5 years ago.. you know kind a like SWTOR does with its gear as level cap increases.

[Ratajack]

T-4 is NOT END GAME!! its a leveling ship.

 

T-6 is end game.. the highest stat end game ships can NOT be bought from the Z-Store.

 

Such as the store bought

 

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Guardian_Cruiser

 

vs the free event ship

 

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Kobali_Samsar_Cruiser

 

the free event ship has more hull, more consoles then the store bought T-6 ships, they are both tank cruisers and the FREE one has higher stats then the store version.

 

The fact you are arguing this shows how ignorant you are on STO.

 

PS: I showed T-4 and up showing the generational difference of the ships... T4 was the basic admiral ships from 5 years ago.. you know kind a like SWTOR does with its gear as level cap increases.

 

This is not just about end game and end game ships. The fact is that the ships purchased from the z-store are superior to the "free" in game versions of those ships.

 

Also, as I said, the only reason that your precious carrier is currently better than anything available from the z-store is that there is no equivalent ship available from the z-store. You can bet that if, and when, they introduce a version of that ship to the z-store, it will be superior to the "free" version available in game.

[AmericanNate]

As another note, when Delta Rising first launched, and they introduced t6, they came out as Intel ships, that allowed you to have Intel Boffs in your stations. Some of those Intel abilities and skills were must haves in kerrat. No t5 or t5 fleet ship upgraded would get access to the Intel boffs. Also, the t6 ships had an extra mastery trait that you could gain by grinding xp, which the upgraded t5 could not get. My t6 Faeht out performed my fleet mogai upgraded I every way. I bought the Delta operations pack that had all faction ships. And Intel team made a huge difference in some content.

[Kalfear]

grats Happy, you trolled the thread

 

now please stop trolling

[Happy_Puppy]

As another note, when Delta Rising first launched, and they introduced t6, they came out as Intel ships, that allowed you to have Intel Boffs in your stations. Some of those Intel abilities and skills were must haves in kerrat. No t5 or t5 fleet ship upgraded would get access to the Intel boffs. Also, the t6 ships had an extra mastery trait that you could gain by grinding xp, which the upgraded t5 could not get. My t6 Faeht out performed my fleet mogai upgraded I every way. I bought the Delta operations pack that had all faction ships. And Intel team made a huge difference in some content.

 

You mean a new generation of ships were better then old generation of ships.. who would of thought that.

 

Its no different then SWTOR, trying to argue that its not fair the new level 60 raid gear is better then my old level 55 raid gear.

 

I own the Mat 'Ha, Eclipse and Phantom so I know how the basic T-6's are vs old fleet ships I own a lot of the old ships, from the Atrox to the Galaxy bundle, Mogh, All romulans ones but the scim.. That doesn't change the fact that the free event ships are just as if not more capable then the store bought T-6 ships in the same class. Such as the Guardian Cruiser vs the Kobali Cruiser

 

The fact is that the Free T-6 ships are more then capable if not in way better then anything you can buy.. he is trying to argue that's its P2W.. when they give you ships that are on scale to anything out there end game. Then try's to argue about looks of the ships.. well its like "well duh, you want it to look a certain way you get to pay for it" no different then swtor charging to change your looks of your toon.

 

As far a Kerrat.. man that zone has been a unbalanced mess for ages... population imbalance... Feds forming mass balls and just winning the zone while KDF group up to ambush Feds that get to far away from the ball... They need to totally rework that pvp zone. Though like SWTOR, STO doesn't give pvp nearly the attention that pve gets.

 

Just wondering you primary FED or KDF?

[Ratajack]

Your just being stupid now....

 

the linked ships are cruisers....

They are not leveling ships.. as are T4.

They are not old generations ships like T5 are.. and even when T-5 was tops generation ships they still had free event ships that were Fleet T-5 equal or better then anything you could buy stat wise.

 

Z store ships are cosmetic.. you want a enterprise d looking ship.. for end game.. you can buy it.. or you can use this free ship that has better stats then your enterprise d but it wont look ionic.

 

The ships I linked are NOT all cruisers. At least one of them was an escort. The class of ship makes no difference. The pattern is the same for all classes. The store bought version is superior to the "free" in game version.

 

Ignore the truth all you want and attempt to hide that truth from the rest of us, but don't be surprised when someone call you out for it and even provides proof of the truth.

 

Are you going to try to tell us that if they offered a z-store version of your precious carrier, that it would not be superior to the "free" in game version?

[Tilvius]

 

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.

 

(( "What restrictions are being placed on the game and players now that subscriptions are no longer required to play?

None. The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited is the full version of the game, with all previous updates and content additions, including the new Champion and Justice systems. " ))

 

Thats from the ESO FAQ. Pretty much saying the game won't have any restrictions. So it is like GW2 business model where you buy the game and you can play it without restrictions ( except when an expansion comes out which you will have to buy ). Sure there is a sub option for ESO and the benefits are really neat and attractive to those that have the money to spend it. If only SWTOR was like this. I think they would have more of a player base.

 

Has there ever been games where they have gone from F2P to B2P or is it to late for SWTOR to change it's business model to a similar direction of ESO or GW2?

Edited March 11, 2015 by Tilvius

[jedip_enguin]

Has there ever been games where they have gone from F2P to B2P or is it to late for SWTOR to change it's business model to a similar direction of ESO or GW2?

 

Why would they do this when they are probably making more money than both those games combined?

 

What business case could you possibly make for this change?

Edited March 11, 2015 by jedip_enguin

[Happy_Puppy]

The ships I linked are NOT all cruisers. At least one of them was an escort. The class of ship makes no difference. The pattern is the same for all classes. The store bought version is superior to the "free" in game version.

 

Ignore the truth all you want and attempt to hide that truth from the rest of us, but don't be surprised when someone call you out for it and even provides proof of the truth.

 

Are you going to try to tell us that if they offered a z-store version of your precious carrier, that it would not be superior to the "free" in game version?

 

just ****.. you do not play.. or have a gd clue about STO or how the ship tiering works...

 

and no there would never be a Z store version of the carrier.. because they NEVER HAVE SOLD FLEET LEVEL SHIPS IN THE Z STORE!!

 

Get that through your head..

 

They have given away for FREE every class of ships.. not style but class of ship for free that were equal to or better then anything that they sell directly.

 

The Defiant and the Defiant retro are a style of ship.. they are classed as escorts.. and yes they have given away fleet level T-5 escorts.. the same class as the defiant retrofit.

Free escort doing a older event...

 

free ship

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Risian_Corvette

 

vs

 

store bought

 

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Defiant_Retrofit

 

there both escorts.. same tier rank... one is store bought the other was free... What you pay for is the iconic look of the defiant.

[Happy_Puppy]

(( "What restrictions are being placed on the game and players now that subscriptions are no longer required to play?

None. The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited is the full version of the game, with all previous updates and content additions, including the new Champion and Justice systems. " ))

 

Thats from the ESO FAQ. Pretty much saying the game won't have any restrictions. So it is like GW2 business model where you buy the game and you can play it without restrictions ( except when an expansion comes out which you will have to buy ). Sure there is a sub option for ESO and the benefits are really neat and attractive to those that have the money to spend it. If only SWTOR was like this. I think they would have more of a player base.

 

Has there ever been games where they have gone from F2P to B2P or is it to late for SWTOR to change it's business model to a similar direction of ESO or GW2?

 

ESO is turning in to a B2P with micro transactions you are right in that regard. But its not like GW2.. GW2 is pretty close to only cosmetic with a few qul sprinkled in and was built to be a B2P game.

 

ESO is turning into one mainly do to the console part. This was do in part to criticism in having to pay for gold or plus sub from Microsoft and sony and then ESO charge another 15 a month on top of that. From what I have read its a hybrid B2P/micro transaction game.

 

As for as SWTOR.. there is no reason for it to change to a B2P... ESO tanked hard and fast.. they almost became another APO story.. so this is a way to recover and start fresh with them changing there business model for the console crowd.

[Ratajack]

 

They have given away for FREE every class of ships.. not style but class of ship for free that were equal to or better then anything that they sell directly.

 

 

I have already proven this to be blatantly false.

 

I have already provided links to prove that the store bought ships are superior to the "free" in game versions of those ships.

 

The proof is there for anyone who wants, or is willing, to see it.

 

I

[Ghisallo]

2013 was 139 mil not 169 for swtor http://www.swtorstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/top-10-superdata.jpg

 

 

139 million was from Cartel market MICRO TRANSACTIONS.

http://www.superdataresearch.com/content/uploads/2013/12/F2P-Top10-2013-1.jpg read the top of the chart. Same source for total revenue..http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/original/123/1239113/2600951-superdata10.jpg sorry it was 165 Million total.

 

So you need to check your numbers sir... BTW do you see STO or GW on that f2p earnings list? NOPE... so even on the f2p front SWTOR is winning the money game (though I suspect that GW2 will close on them as they expand deeper into a market that SWTOR doesn't even participate in...and is it proper to compare the profits of a product sold in more markets? IMO no)

 

GW2 is not a sub based game... Also GW2 isn't losing money,

and I never claimed they were a sub based game. That said you need to read in context AND check your numbers again... I said in the 2013 time frame and here we have...

 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-02-14-guild-wars-2-in-steep-decline-in-weak-q4-for-ncsoft

 

Key bit for the time frame involved...

Ncsoft's flagship MMO Guild Wars 2 showed a decline in sales and revenue, making ₩34 billion ($32 million) in Q4, 2013. That's down from ₩119 billion ($112 million) in the prior year's quarter, when the game launched - a clear reflection of its subscription-free model. However, with the title still to launch in Asian territories, traditionally NCsoft's strongest market, those numbers are expected to climb again soon.

 

And that is exactly what I said... they lost money BUT with their launch in China... a market SWTOR is not in... they will start to make money again. So we AGAIN have SWTOR, that in shared markets is making MORE than these other games you note that have "better" f2p models.

 

I think you miss a KEY thing about human psychology. IF people can get something for free they will take it. Not many will say "hey I just really like this product and even if I can play for free I will just give this FOR PROFIT company money". It doesn't work that way.

 

See this is your problem. You aren't thinking like a business man...you are thinking like a player who believes you should be able to play a for profit product for free and you are cranky that you can't. You don't understand that f2p is a con game period. That all of them are a con to one degree or another. For goodness sakes the EU is considering regulations AGAINST them. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/02/eu-takes-on-misleading-free-to-play-games/ and http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/12/free-to-play-games-could-be-illegal-warns-office-of-fair-trading-3613193/

 

So you go pulling at subjective concepts like "right and wrong", fairness etc. to mask the loss of revenue that would occurr because you want it for free. In furtherance of this you then don't do due diligence on your research and stop, cherry picking data, when you think you found something to support your point. Ergo not really worth debating because impartial facts and logic aren't on your agenda.

 

As for your insistence on the STO ship thing.... I'll leave that to ratajack. it seems on multiple fronts, when it comes to data, you have proven a rather obvious degree of ignorance as you are blinded by your subjective like/dislike. If you want to willfully blind yourself it's all good. However PLEASE don't try to blind others with cherry picked data that then lead to grossly inaccurate statements.

 

(PS...I purposefully left out the links first time around to watch you cherry pick and then be able to point it out so people would have it right in front of them)

Edited March 11, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Happy_Puppy]

I have already proven this to be blatantly false.

 

I have already provided links to prove that the store bought ships are superior to the "free" in game versions of those ships.

 

The proof is there for anyone who wants, or is willing, to see it.

 

I

 

You haven't proved squat... you linked a style of ship vs a tier level of ships.

[Happy_Puppy]

139 million was from Cartel market MICRO TRANSACTIONS.

http://www.superdataresearch.com/content/uploads/2013/12/F2P-Top10-2013-1.jpg read the top of the chart. Same source for total revenue..http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/original/123/1239113/2600951-superdata10.jpg sorry it was 165 Million total.

 

So you need to check your numbers sir... BTW do you see STO or GW on that f2p earnings list? NOPE... so even on the f2p front SWTOR is winning the money game (though I suspect that GW2 will close on them as they expand deeper into a market that SWTOR doesn't even participate in...and is it proper to compare the profits of a product sold in more markets? IMO no)

 

and I never claimed they were a sub based game. That said you need to read in context AND check your numbers again... I said in the 2013 time frame and here we have...

 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-02-14-guild-wars-2-in-steep-decline-in-weak-q4-for-ncsoft

 

Key bit for the time frame involved...

 

And that is exactly what I said... they lost money BUT with their launch in China... a market SWTOR is not in... they will start to make money again. So we AGAIN have SWTOR, that in shared markets is making MORE than these other games you note that have "better" f2p models.

 

I think you miss a KEY thing about human psychology. IF people can get something for free they will take it. Not many will say "hey I just really like this product and even if I can play for free I will just give this FOR PROFIT company money". It doesn't work that way.

 

See this is your problem. You aren't thinking like a business man...you are thinking like a player who believes you should be able to play a for profit product for free and you are cranky that you can't. You don't understand that f2p is a con game period. That all of them are a con to one degree or another. For goodness sakes the EU is considering regulations AGAINST them. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/02/eu-takes-on-misleading-free-to-play-games/ and http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/12/free-to-play-games-could-be-illegal-warns-office-of-fair-trading-3613193/

 

So you go pulling at subjective concepts like "right and wrong", fairness etc. to mask the loss of revenue that would occurr because you want it for free. In furtherance of this you then don't do due diligence on your research and stop, cherry picking data, when you think you found something to support your point. Ergo not really worth debating because impartial facts and logic aren't on your agenda.

 

As for your insistence on the STO ship thing.... I'll leave that to ratajack. it seems on multiple fronts, when it comes to data, you have proven a rather obvious degree of ignorance as you are blinded by your subjective like/dislike. If you want to willfully blind yourself it's all good. However PLEASE don't try to blind others with cherry picked data that then lead to grossly inaccurate statements.

 

(PS...I purposefully left out the links first time around to watch you cherry pick and then be able to point it out so people would have it right in front of them)

 

So much wrong in your post.. reread what I linked..

http://www.swtorstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/top-10-superdata.jpg

Please tell me where it says based on micro transactions.... hint its doesn't it was world wide just like yours does.

So we used the same source and they put out 2 different numbers.. well then that would mean that this source it unreliable.

 

You said GW2 losing income.. that is a blatant false statement. Losing money is not same as sells are lower this year. They are not in the red, if you go by that logic every game is losing money after launch given the bulk of box sells is at launch. Given GW2 is a B2P game of course its total income is lower a year rafter release. NCsoft is not "losing money" its still in the black with GW2. But then again by your logic.. SWTOR is losing money.. after all it doesn't have near the box sells or subs as it did in the year it launched.

 

AS far as UK articles.. games like SWTOR maybe a con in the UK in fact EA is the ONLY game company they mention. Why is that? Do to them hiding content behind pay walls. Games like NWN,STO and GW2 has no hidden content or restriction to that content that must be paid for. So this proves my point about how idiotic SWTOR's F2P model is.

 

As far as ratajack he is totally ignorant on STO.. cant even tell the difference between a class of ship vs a style of ship.