With the credits inflation in the last years isn't it time to raise credit cap?

[TX_Angel]

That's fair enough. I think part of the problem is that there is no distinction between someone who has paid $5 into the game, and someone who has been subbed for about 3 years off and on. One's put a lot more money into it, but they are treated the same. Problem is, I'll be the first one to admit that trying to correct that issue would just open up a massive can of worms trying to determine the cut-off between tiers. Doesn't make it any less frustrating, though. Cheers.

 

Consider the other point of view...

 

I've subbed since launch, I now have three paid accounts... I have bought thousands worth of CC in the past...

 

Since launch, I've probably put more than $5,000 into this game. Now I hear a bunch of people who "subbed on and off for a few years" wanting better treatment. That demand diminishes those of us who didn't "subbed on and off" but stayed and were loyal, and continue to pay.

 

If you subbed, you got full access for the time you subbed. You don't get future credits good for stuff when you're not paying. Or should I call up AT&T and demand free service since I've paid on time for 10 years? How well do you think THAT will go?

 

Frankly, the whole subject reeks of entitlement. "I paid something, once, in the past, now give me stuff!" If you want to play, pay, it is that simple. If you don't want to pay, or can't for whatever reason, then don't, but don't expect anything and be thankful for whatever you do get.

 

This is a game, not food or medicine... I get providing free food to starving people, but this is not that... You have no moral or ethical right to play this game regardless of your ability to pay.

[TX_Angel]

This is actually why I looked at 700k as a decent 'cap' for a pref (prior subscriber of 1 year+) account - it's right below many of the unlocks for Tat and most SHs would mean you'd have to be a sub, or pay in some other way to unlock the rooms in there, and most of the rooms for NS that are over 350k are 1mil+. I would be all for them being able to buy more from subscribers, but would not give them the same buying power as a subscriber.

 

Keep in mind that the idea of strongholds was to try and sell CC to non-subs. The price of strongholds isn't "cheap", but it isn't "expensive" to a sub who plays the game, you can buy them with credits.

 

A F2P player, has to use CC, as it should be.

 

Usually both of us are subs, but he'll go a few months off and on where he is not a subscriber. If he couldn't log in during those periods... I'd be gone as well.

 

And that's fine.

 

I wouldn't call 15$ for SWTOR 'cheap' I'd call it 'standard' for the given market. How much they charged is not the reason it went to F2P.

 

Perhaps if they had charged $30 a month, they wouldn't have had to go F2P. I'm still not convinced F2P saved the game, I think the CM saved it and it was dedicated subs spending thousands that did it.

 

F2P is a nice trial, but that is all it should be. If F2P capped at lvl 25, and you had to pay to level beyond that, I'd be happy enough with that as a solution.

 

3.50 for them is still 3.50 they might not otherwise be making.

 

Then I want a sub at that rate too...

 

Even with the monthly CC from my subscription if I unlocked all the CM items I like I would easily burn through the 500cc per month plus some just off unlocking cosmetics.

 

Anyway...

 

You can buy those CM items off the GTN, you don't need CC for them. If you sub, you have access to nearly unlimited credits to buy all you like.

 

You don't sub to get the CC, that is just a bonus, you sub to remove the limits of F2P.

[TX_Angel]

I'm not gonna start some epic point-counterpoint war with a person who speaks of " trials" with a straight face, as valid option to an F2P in any kind of a post 2011 context at all.

 

You don't have to, but it doesn't make me wrong for you to dismiss me either...

 

SWTOR is not a buy to play game, it is a sub game, with the best free trial offer ever... That is my point of view, and it is a reasonable one...

 

I warmly recommend you to look into payment models of some of the most successful (financially as well as in terms of popularity) Free to Play PC games out there. If you think any of them is all about punishing people for not paying, you are in for a surprise.

 

That is an easy, broad sweeping statement to make that doesn't have to defend itself.

 

Long story short, a game has to make money, or it won't continue to exist.

 

If F2P in SWTOR was not punishing, more subs would just go F2P, including this one. How exactly does that help the game?

 

If ALL subs just went away tomorrow, you think SWTOR will somehow be healthier?

 

I wonder if you actually have some valid reason as to why F2P people should be restricted and annoyed at every turn? Besides some petty BUT I PAY FOR IT, AARG! - thing.

 

Yes, I do. If F2P is too good, then people won't sub. I want the game to succeed, not fail.

 

What part of "if the credit cap went away tomorrow, I would unsub" do you not understand? There are a LOT of people just like me in that regard, it is the only thing keeping us subbed.

 

Making sure F2P people are happy gets em addicted. It means good things for the game in the long run.. It really is that simple. Big enough percentage of people who like the game start caring for the game. That is also the moment when they start throwing money at it.

 

No, you have it backwards... if the F2P people are happy, why would they change their behavior and start paying?

 

Seriously, it goes back to my comment you replied to. You're naive if you think people who are otherwise happy will say "oh gosh, I don't need anything else, but I'll sub for the free jetpack!"

 

Yea, the jetpack isn't worth $15. You'd have to completely change the game's model and remove the sub option completely to do what you want.

[Thoronmir]

You'd have to completely change the game's model and remove the sub option completely to do what you want.

Not an entirely ridiculous proposal. Eliminate subscriptions (and also Preferred), converting entirely to F2P. Retain all the existing restrictions. Compel players to purchase and spend CC to restore their gameplay to a "subscription-quality" experience.

[TX_Angel]

Not an entirely ridiculous proposal. Eliminate subscriptions (and also Preferred), converting entirely to F2P. Retain all the existing restrictions. Compel players to purchase and spend CC to restore their gameplay to a "subscription-quality" experience.

 

I just don't think that is going to happen, but it could...

 

If you remove the sub option and go totally free, but sell content in the form of $5 chapter expansions, $5 warzone maps, etc. You could do that.

 

But once stuff is unlocked, where does the future revenue come from? More content I suppose, but sooner or later you'd run into the same problem the CM is having now. Right now we could badly use 4 more warzone maps.

 

But then what? We get 4 more after that, and 4 more after that. When you only have a half dozen warzones, 4 more is huge. When you have 50 warzones, 4 more is nothing.

 

How about this idea... Raise the sub to $20 a month, but provide 2,400CC for it, in essence, you're selling $20 CC packs each month. Then you release new stuff for various prices, nothing comes "free" with the sub, other than game access, but you can use your 2,400CC as you see fit.

 

Want the new warzone maps? Use your CC for it. Want that shiny new armor instead? Use your CC for it.

 

So sub benefits come from the commitment to pay each month. You still have the option to buy more CC, or buy CC in lieu of a sub, but frankly if you plan to buy any modest amount of CC, just sub.

[thebobmaster]

Consider the other point of view...

 

I've subbed since launch, I now have three paid accounts... I have bought thousands worth of CC in the past...

 

Since launch, I've probably put more than $5,000 into this game. Now I hear a bunch of people who "subbed on and off for a few years" wanting better treatment. That demand diminishes those of us who didn't "subbed on and off" but stayed and were loyal, and continue to pay.

 

If you subbed, you got full access for the time you subbed. You don't get future credits good for stuff when you're not paying. Or should I call up AT&T and demand free service since I've paid on time for 10 years? How well do you think THAT will go?

 

Frankly, the whole subject reeks of entitlement. "I paid something, once, in the past, now give me stuff!" If you want to play, pay, it is that simple. If you don't want to pay, or can't for whatever reason, then don't, but don't expect anything and be thankful for whatever you do get.

 

This is a game, not food or medicine... I get providing free food to starving people, but this is not that... You have no moral or ethical right to play this game regardless of your ability to pay.

 

I'm highlighting that last paragraph because...dude, really? I don't think anyone is saying they have a RIGHT to an increased cap. I hear people asking for it, suggesting it, explaining why they feel that way. But I don't hear anyone saying "I deserve a credit cap raise!" I'm well aware it is a game. That's why I'm not trying to say it's illegal or saying that we literally deserve charity for our past payment. Hell, I even flat-out said that I can understand why they treat former-but-not-current subs the same as those who, in your words "paid something, once, in the past".

 

I think you need to realize that even if someone disagrees with you, they aren't against you. This isn't a charity, and we are all aware of that.

[Ereldina]

I'm highlighting that last paragraph because...dude, really? I don't think anyone is saying they have a RIGHT to an increased cap. I hear people asking for it, suggesting it, explaining why they feel that way. But I don't hear anyone saying "I deserve a credit cap raise!" I'm well aware it is a game. That's why I'm not trying to say it's illegal or saying that we literally deserve charity for our past payment. Hell, I even flat-out said that I can understand why they treat former-but-not-current subs the same as those who, in your words "paid something, once, in the past".

 

I think you need to realize that even if someone disagrees with you, they aren't against you. This isn't a charity, and we are all aware of that.

^^^

Cap increases would be nice.

 

Increase, not removal.

 

Not removal of the other restrictions.

 

Not a change in the other F2P restrictions, and not an increase to the 200k a F2P has. 'Nice to have' but not needed is what many have been saying.

 

They went F2P because they, EA/Bioware, saw the numbers and decided that it would be best for the game.

 

Not an increase in charging subscribers 30$ a month. F2P with Sub optional and a CM.

 

There is a reason for this, and it is in the numbers shown in Korean/Asian style 'free to play' MMOs which dwarf the profits turned even by WoW.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Ereldina

[MeNaCe-NZ]

^^^

 

There is a reason for this, and it is in the numbers shown in Korean/Asian style 'free to play' MMOs which dwarf the profits turned even by WoW.

 

That's got a lot more to do with their society than it does the state of their games.

[TX_Angel]

I'm highlighting that last paragraph because...dude, really?

 

Yes, really... Why? Because believe it or not, it is starting to come across that way.

 

You may not think so, and fair enough. But I do.

 

I hear people asking for it, suggesting it, explaining why they feel that way.

 

The whole bloody world is full of people asking for free stuff. It gets really, really old, to those of us who actually have to do the paying.

 

Now I come to a game, and find people asking for more.

 

As my wife says to our kids. "You get what you get and you don't throw a fit".

 

If it were up to me, I'd remove most F2P limits up to a certain level, perhaps 25, perhaps 40, maybe 49... That way people can experience the full "sub experience". Beyond that, if allowed to keep playing, the restrictions would be MORE restrictive than they currently are.

 

I'm a firm believer that if you enjoy the game and want to keep playing it, you should pay for it. If it isn't worth paying for, why are you playing?

[Manathayria]

Perhaps if they had charged $30 a month, they wouldn't have had to go F2P. I'm still not convinced F2P saved the game, I think the CM saved it and it was dedicated subs spending thousands that did it.

They couldn't keep us founders at 15$ a month, they damn sure wouldn't have kept us at 30$ a month. We had a lot of servers shut down because the population was not there for it after the initial surge. We left in droves because of issues with the game that were not fixed in those first few months.

 

I think you overestimate the value of this game if you think it would have been worth that much to anyone, that's the cost of a full game, and most full MMOs about a year after release. They would have gone under faster had they tried to charge 30$ a month.

 

You can buy those CM items off the GTN, you don't need CC for them. If you sub, you have access to nearly unlimited credits to buy all you like.

 

You don't sub to get the CC, that is just a bonus, you sub to remove the limits of F2P.

I cannot account unlock those items through collections with credits. I usually account unlock any armor I like such as satele's or tulak. I'm not paying 10mil + depending on server just to get either of those sets a second time, even as a subscriber. You are wrong on that point.

 

I've subbed since launch, I now have three paid accounts... I have bought thousands worth of CC in the past...

Not on the account you're speaking from you were not playing since launch day. Are you speaking from your main/oldest account?

 

Regardless, I stand by what I've said before - it would be nice if they gave long term subscribers who have dropped subscription a cap of 700k or anything between that and 350k.

 

Leave F2P and the 'I paid 5$' or 'I subbed for a month' crowds with the original caps of 200 and 350k.

 

Something that keeps the currency in circulation and rewards people for having been long term subscribers - and is in and of itself a decent 'subscriber reward' much like the companions for those who would otherwise only subscribe for a month, drop it, then wait till the final chapter of KoTFE to release to subscribe again. If your cap went up 50k for being subbed for a year, and continued to do so till it capped out at the max possible for a pref at say...around 700k, it would be something people would stay subscribed for even if only to get the 'reward' and drop sub once they've hit the cap out for possible rewards.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

So far I've not seen one good point as to why BW should raise the cap for F2P or preferred beyond "it would be nice if they did".

 

It won't make them anymore money, it won't encourage more people to sub ... does anyone actually have one good reason for BW to do so?

 

You get a pretty decent single player game for free really here and it's only restricted when you compare yourself to subscribers. Everything you need to play and enjoy the single player games is given to you for free, you want vanity crap pay for it. If you want a sample of some more fuller MMO content then you at least make _A_ payment towards the game.

 

Whilst I'm not against the cap being removed if it meant people couldn't buy unlocks with credits anymore that is purely for selfish reasons of having more people to buy my GTN stuff and me getting richer faster ...

 

A good money making change I would put in if I was Bioware is to change how unlocks are puchased to begin with so people can't use their "referral" CC's to buy them. This means if someone wants to go preferred ... they had to be sub to have enough credits to buy the unlock which means no matter how you cut it BW got some money for you to be an unlocked preferred player.

I guess even with the referral CC you could argue BW got some money for those CC's but with I would imagine 90% of referrals not actually being referrals at all and just from people already playing it's money they already had to begin with so their are cutting themselves short with the current referral program.

I assume they don't change it to avoid outrage.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

 

Something that keeps the currency in circulation and rewards people for having been long term subscribers - and is in and of itself a decent 'subscriber reward' much like the companions for those who would otherwise only subscribe for a month, drop it, then wait till the final chapter of KoTFE to release to subscribe again. If your cap went up 50k for being subbed for a year, and continued to do so till it capped out at the max possible for a pref at say...around 700k, it would be something people would stay subscribed for even if only to get the 'reward' and drop sub once they've hit the cap out for possible rewards.

 

Right I will reward you and encourage you to stop giving me money ... I'm assuming business isn't your strong suit.

 

Also not sure if you understand this game economy what so ever but I don't see anyone saying "hmm I should stay subbed for another 6 months even though I'm bored ******** and I don't want to because my cap will go up 350K and that means one extra pair of boots I can wear!"

[Manathayria]

Right I will reward you and encourage you to stop giving me money ... I'm assuming business isn't your strong suit.

 

Also not sure if you understand this game economy what so ever but I don't see anyone saying "hmm I should stay subbed for another 6 months even though I'm bored ******** and I don't want to because my cap will go up 350K and that means one extra pair of boots I can wear!"

 

Actually my thought was along the lines of; 'I'm going to reward you for being a loyal customer, if anything comes up in finances/life that you need a brief break in being a subscriber, we'll give you a little something more for having been a loyal subscriber - hopefully, if you stick around since you will see the state of the game - you will subscribe again to enjoy the game without restrictions.'

 

700k is not a big increase as stated before, nor is it a removal of the cap (which is how some of you are reacting to this - that any slight increase would be a big thing that makes it so people will suddenly stop subscribing.

 

That small of an increase won't change their sub habits, but it might be the difference between not logging in, and not logging in. If they're logging in, they see things like the QOL changes with crafting materials stacking to 9k that are coming etc. Small changes that may draw them in more to turn them back into a subscriber.

 

So far I've not seen one good point as to why BW should raise the cap for F2P or preferred beyond "it would be nice if they did".

 

It won't make them anymore money, it won't encourage more people to sub ... does anyone actually have one good reason for BW to do so?

Read above. I think if it's something that keeps someone in game a little longer, they're more likely to re-subscribe.

 

EA however, knows the full numbers on who is spending what and if it's going to be profitable for them to increase a cap - which is why a change to the cap (again, I am not/would not ask for a removal of the cap) is in their hands not ours. It would be a 'nice to have' change for prior subscribers. It is not needed, it is not even something I expect to see happen but it would be nice to see it done.

 

The only game i can think of similar to SWTOR that has different 'tiers' for their currency like CC is TSW. The lifetime subscribers get a monthly grant which can build up for 6 months before they expire - 1200 bonus points per month, an outfit... costs roughly that in the game - but they have no restrictions on the items that are tradable for the 'bonus' points and those are spent before the bought ones. EA could try something like that for referral CC just to make sure people are clearing their ledgers relatively often so they are not getting the items that are more expensive 'free' with hoarding CC. If I remember correctly, there is a cap on how many people you can refer for CC and how much you can earn per month off having referred people with the 100cc trickle off each.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Manathayria

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Actually my thought was along the lines of; 'I'm going to reward you for being a loyal customer, if anything comes up in finances/life that you need a brief break in being a subscriber, we'll give you a little something more for having been a loyal subscriber - hopefully, if you stick around since you will see the state of the game - you will subscribe again to enjoy the game without restrictions.'

 

You already get that, it's called preferred status ... why from a business point of view would they want to incentivize you giving them less money?

 

700k is not a big increase as stated before, nor is it a removal of the cap (which is how some of you are reacting to this - that any slight increase would be a big thing that makes it so people will suddenly stop subscribing.

 

That small of an increase won't change their sub habits, but it might be the difference between not logging in, and not logging in. If they're logging in, they see things like the QOL changes with crafting materials stacking to 9k that are coming etc. Small changes that may draw them in more to turn them back into a subscriber.

 

It might also be the difference between buying an unlock on the GTN or not ... the argument then is would they make more money from the sales of the unlocks or from the person needing to be subbed instead.

 

Read above. I think if it's something that keeps someone in game a little longer, they're more likely to re-subscribe.

 

That's not a valid reason at all. That's a "what if" reason and I see nothing to support that increasing the cap from 350K to 700K would be a deciding factor in if they resubscribe or not. How do you figure an extra 350K is going to have someone log in over not logging in ... to buy a pair of boots they can wear in a game they mustn't be wanting to play anyway because they aren't logging in? I'm not seeing the logic here, it's far more likely to lead to less subscribers than it will more because it increase the options of what you can buy when you are unsubbed ( unlocks for example ).

 

 

EA however, knows the full numbers on who is spending what and if it's going to be profitable for them to increase a cap -

 

Well Bioware ... I doubt EA micromanages their metrics too much but who knows.

In any case you made a correct point and the conclusion is after all these years that no it won't make them more money otherwise the cap would have increased.

If/when it did go up then that statement can be reversed.

[Manathayria]

Well Bioware ... I doubt EA micromanages their metrics too much but who knows.

In any case you made a correct point and the conclusion is after all these years that no it won't make them more money otherwise the cap would have increased.

If/when it did go up then that statement can be reversed.

 

It's because of the data and I assume because of metrics that they're making the instant 60 armor bop now actually... they expect that to decrease the number of people rerolling instants.

 

Hey folks,

 

Right now, when you make a brand new Start at 60 character, the armor that your character is wearing is Bind on Legacy. This has allowed players to make characters with the purpose of moving that armor appearance around to other characters. What we have seen on our side is that this has created a large increase in players creating characters just to get the armor sets, and then deleting those characters. This has created a negative impact on the data side. In order address this, we need to make some changes to how that gear works.

 

I don't think their change is going to fix craaaap but we'll see....

 

 

I do believe they watch those metrics pretty close though, especially if they're looking at the data from the instant 60s. I think you may be right that a change in cap might see fewer of the escrow selling.

 

However... I also know that there are entire guilds who's sole existence is for F2P to bypass the caps via trades and using guild banks through other P2P players. It's because of these guilds that a change was made ages ago so even with guild bank access unlocked through CM a F2P player could not deposit or withdraw from a guild bank.

 

That means there is a chance it would not change anything for those that are determined to be F2P and bypass restrictions. I know the brief stints I've had as F2P I simply got a buddy to trade over credits and stashed them on alts till I found something interesting to buy. The credit cap never slowed me down - the other restrictions with drops etc in FPS however slowed me down and pissed me off to no end till the 90 days passed and I was able to subscribe again.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Manathayria

[mrcheap]

I am not sure but do you guys think if they had a Cartel Market item like a legacy 100k credit limit increase for 1000CC would that make them money or lose it?

 

I guess the other issue is Chinese gold farmers/credit card stealers. Anything that makes their lives easier is bad.

[cool-dude]

I agree.

 

A f2p model needs to be punishing,or there is no incentive to subscribe. Tera, for example, does not punish it's players for being f2p, and look at the state of that game. They have downsized tremendously, with only having one active server, because the population is so low. When they come out with new classes, they only give the most popular races new classes, because they cannot afford to add new animations to all races. The new classes they do add, are over-powered, and are capable of playing everything solo. There is absolutely no penalty to not subscribe.

 

People on this post saying that restrictions push away players are wrong., and probably would not subscribe, if there was no restrictions. I wouldn't. I also met f2p players in a guild I was in, that were considering subscribing, because they enjoyed the game, and were tired of the limits to everything.

Edited February 5, 2016 by cool-dude

[Manathayria]

I am not sure but do you guys think if they had a Cartel Market item like a legacy 100k credit limit increase for 1000CC would that make them money or lose it?

 

I guess the other issue is Chinese gold farmers/credit card stealers. Anything that makes their lives easier is bad.

 

My bet would be make them money - and as with prior arguments, I suggest enforcing a cap to any unlocks like that. I'd want the credit cap kept 700k or less if they added a credit cap unlock like that. It would also be the only item in CM I would want as either a Bind on Pickup item, or an unlock which is only paid through CC on your currency tab, and only unlocks the Credit cap for 1000 CC for that legacy for 100k and only able to buy/use 3-4 of the unlocks similar to how the number of times you can use character slot unlocks is restricted. That ends up with the credit cap still under 800k.

 

I find it mildly amusing that although I'd be happy with a credit cap increase - I don't want it raised too high, and I would want it tightly controlled and only accessible to those that have paid in a fair bit to the game already (IE; subing for a year, or the 1k CC like you mentioned). To be fair, it would only really open the market options for who can buy what I post on the GTN a little. The higher credit items I sell would still remain unobtainable for that crowd.

 

My primary reason for under 1mil is there is a handful of mounts that can be gotten from vendors that are roughly 1mil. Under 800k is because of room unlocks on Tat being roughly 800k+ and the cost of unlocks on other SHs.

 

I'd be good with and all for a little more slack for prior subs - but unlike some who suggest it should be removed I do not want it gone.

 

To be perfectly clear, it was not the credit cap that made the list of '**** that made me want to re-subscribe within a week of being F2P' - it was restrictions on FPs, WZ and GSF, as well as the reduction in my ability to craft. I had plenty of ways around the credit cap to buy my shiny boots and trinkets that were not BoP at that time.

 

That said, I recognize that for others the credit cap is a major factor - as they stated multiple times at the start of the thread, which is why while I would support it being raised a little - but I don't want it removed, and would not mind it being kept as is.

 

A f2p model needs to be punishing,or there is no incentive to subscribe. Tera, for example, does not punish it's players for being f2p, and look at the state of that game. They have downsized tremendously, with only having one active server, because the population is so low. When they come out with new classes, they only give the most popular races new classes, because they cannot afford to add new animations to all races. The new classes they do add, are over-powered, and are capable of playing everything solo. There is absolutely no penalty to not subscribe.

 

People on this post saying that restrictions push away players are wrong., and probably would not subscribe, if there was no restrictions. I wouldn't. I also met f2p players in a guild I was in, that were considering subscribing, because they enjoyed the game, and were tired of the limits to everything.

 

Most of the F2P in my guild that are looking at subscribing are doing so because we keep pointing out new content they can't access, and they're getting frustrated that there are enough events we do/they're unable to contribute to the work we're doing for building up to a guild flagship.

 

I agree with most of what you're saying about F2P vs P2P, however, I'd point you toward the restrictions not connected to a credit cap as the real incentive to subscribe.

 

I had multiple ways around the credit cap when I went F2P and I expect anyone else that's properly motivated but wants to play will have similar setups. They have sealed up some of the methods I used to transfer credits when I dropped sub and I can't say it's a bad thing they caught on. It is likely because of some of those workarounds that they made it so you cannot put most items with a refund timer into your shared bank.

 

This entry explains the issue I ran into and why I left my subscription down despite badly wanting to re-subscribe within a week. I generally stay subscribed unless I know I won't have proper net to login anyway for a while;

https://gamingtrails.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/raf-scammers-on-swtor/

[TX_Angel]

They couldn't keep us founders at 15$ a month, they damn sure wouldn't have kept us at 30$ a month. We had a lot of servers shut down because the population was not there for it after the initial surge. We left in droves because of issues with the game that were not fixed in those first few months.

 

Sure, but they were under the impression that 5 million subs was an option, and it never was. It still is pretty low today compared to back then.

 

I cannot account unlock those items through collections with credits. I usually account unlock any armor I like such as satele's or tulak. I'm not paying 10mil + depending on server just to get either of those sets a second time, even as a subscriber. You are wrong on that point.

 

You unlock everything? That would cost a ton of CC, but to each their own... I find that I honestly don't have an actual need to unlock all that much, the monthly CC covers it.

 

Not on the account you're speaking from you were not playing since launch day. Are you speaking from your main/oldest account?

 

The numbers on accounts on the forums are not accurate... but I've been playing on this account since about 3 weeks post launch.

[squirrelballz]

To be perfectly clear, it was not the credit cap that made the list of '**** that made me want to re-subscribe within a week of being F2P' - it was restrictions on FPs, WZ and GSF, as well as the reduction in my ability to craft. I had plenty of ways around the credit cap to buy my shiny boots and trinkets that were not BoP at that time.

 

Most of the F2P in my guild that are looking at subscribing are doing so because we keep pointing out new content they can't access, and they're getting frustrated that there are enough events we do/they're unable to contribute to the work we're doing for building up to a guild flagship.

 

I agree with most of what you're saying about F2P vs P2P, however, I'd point you toward the restrictions not connected to a credit cap as the real incentive to subscribe.

 

I had multiple ways around the credit cap when I went F2P and I expect anyone else that's properly motivated but wants to play will have similar setups. They have sealed up some of the methods I used to transfer credits when I dropped sub and I can't say it's a bad thing they caught on. It is likely because of some of those workarounds that they made it so you cannot put most items with a refund timer into your shared bank.

 

This entry explains the issue I ran into and why I left my subscription down despite badly wanting to re-subscribe within a week. I generally stay subscribed unless I know I won't have proper net to login anyway for a while;

https://gamingtrails.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/raf-scammers-on-swtor/

 

Yup I agree with you, nothing about the cap enticed me personally into Subbing I honestly couldn't go without unlimited WZ, FP, and OPS plus the crafting restrictions were heavy on me, there are so many ways to get around the credit cap honestly like you said. More importantly if the Devs treat this game properly any game should be able to sell itself with help from proper marketing. The longer people play a game the more likely they are to spend money on it. If you want to look at an example of good marketing and a game without restrictions look at league of legends it's a gold mine, data to support it in the 2nd link below.

 

I will leave these two links if anyone is interested about reading F2P and their viability:

 

http://www.upstart.net.au/2015/12/17/free-to-play-free-to-profit/

 

https://www.superdataresearch.com/blog/us-digital-games-market/

Edited February 6, 2016 by squirrelballz

[Theeko]

Imo since everythings inflated currently Pref should get atleast 3m and f2p 1.5m so they can atleast buy minimal items before having to spend real $

[Manathayria]

Sure, but they were under the impression that 5 million subs was an option, and it never was. It still is pretty low today compared to back then.

They and a lot of fans had the hope it'd be a 'wow killer' and would draw a lot of those subscriptions to them. What people miscalculate is that a game that big isn't going to be toppled by an outside force - it'll die when blizzard ****s up enough, or decides to pull the plug on it.

 

You unlock everything? That would cost a ton of CC, but to each their own... I find that I honestly don't have an actual need to unlock all that much, the monthly CC covers it.

 

I unlock a lot and spent well beyond the monthly/raf CC. even if I will only use a few things from each of the sets. I haven't updated the spreadsheet in a while but according to it I'm at 26 sets of armor not unlocked to account of the 149 total sets I have available in collections... there's no easy way to check 'overall things you have unlocked' in the collections unless you go section by section even with the search function. I know most sections I'm looking at having around 60-70% of the items available, if not unlocked.

 

Much of that was unlocked while I wasn't a subscriber as well, because if I'm not subbed, I can still enjoy RP - and having access to all of the open world content and being able to play dress ups kept me logging in and wanting to subscribe asap because of what I knew I couldn't do. I've only dropped sub and seen any change in how I play while deployed, and during the period where I was resetting my ability to use a raf link. The changes were generally with FPS - not involving the credit caps.

 

The numbers on accounts on the forums are not accurate... but I've been playing on this account since about 3 weeks post launch.

I knew the lower numbers were generally launch accounts and it is possible (to a point) to see who was in early on based on the forum ID, I'm guessing then that the forum IDs are in part based on when we actually signed up on forums - not just when we started playing. Generally when I hear the word 'founder' I think 'launch day' as well which I know isn't correct.

 

I have the stupid black/yellow crystal they gave all preorders on this account that I never use....

 

Imo since everythings inflated currently Pref should get atleast 3m and f2p 1.5m so they can atleast buy minimal items before having to spend real $

 

I disagree. Most minimal items (especially since 4.0) are free. I can fully gear myself off soloing BT tactical.

 

I can get decent looking armor for under/around 700k, less if I just use the BTL gear and dye that from the various reps/social vendors. Also, there's crafted armor that doesn't need to be a crit with augment slot to look good.

 

While I support a cap increase for prior subscribers - I don't want a large increase. If they're wanting to buy something they can do what pref accounts currently do - use a subscribing friend to get around the cap for what they want.

 

F2P are F2P. If they want anything beyond 200k they can subscribe or pay into the game with small purchases.

 

Unless something dramatically changed with 4.0, common data crystal (previously com gear) that is artifact quality did not require the artifact authorization, that means if someone subscribes for a month they can unlock pretty much everything with a month sub since you now keep all expansions (which I paid for) and you can use a raf link to get some of the cosmetic unlocks.

 

The more I see people that want to take away the cap, or raise it exponentially rather than just a little, the less I support the idea of raising it even slightly. Especially since I know there are ways to get around it with friends in game or secondary accounts.

 

While I'd be onboard with easing restrictions to make it easier on prior subs... as someone else pointed out - too much and you make it exponentially easier on gold farmers.

[KyaniteD]

The cap should be lifted altogether.

.

1. People go f2p because they don't want/can't spend money on the game. Therefore they likely won't spend any (significant amount of) money on unlocks.
   
2. Devs already stated multiple times that it's mostly subs that spend extra money on the game.
   
3. By limiting the buying power of f2p they're limiting the potential buyer base for cartel market items/unlocks/consumables. If there are fewer people who can buy the items on GTN (at a price that represents a good credits/coins ratio), fewer items will be purchased on cartel market to sell for credits.
   
4. Indirectly, a bad credit/coin ratio due to limited buying power of the potential buyer base makes credit sellers more attractive.
   

 

Along with it they should also find and implement a way to pay RL money (not coins) for a subscription item that can be traded in-game for credits or items. Because in the end, it doesn't matter who pays RL money, what matters is that someone does. If 10 subs with disposable income (and perhaps little time to farm for creds) buy 20 subs and trade 10 for credits, it's still 20 subs in the books and 20 instead of just 10 people who are enjoying the game.

Edited February 6, 2016 by KyaniteD

[AlrikFassbauer]

Along with it they should also find and implement a way to pay RL money (not coins) for a subscription item that can be traded in-game for credits or items.

 

Scammers would definitively love this idea.

[kevinatorz]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned but they should raise the cap, at least to the point that it is actually worth it to buy the weekly passes to sell on the gtn. Because right now i don't think 300,000~350,000 credits is worth the price of buying then selling a weekly pass.