Maintenance for the week of November 25:
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
Full subscription based (PayToPlay) or combine with play to pay? NO F2P.
Aeradon
✭✭✭✭✭
Posted in Main Quest cause I can't find appropriate category.
Recently a company has launched a distinctive Play to Pay system. The system is as follows:
1. Player 1 subscribes monthly, has a lot of money IRL but has no time to play.
2. Player 2 is a student with not much cash but tonnes of time.
3. Player 1 buys additional game time and auction it for in game gold, Player 2 buys game time with in game gold. Player 1 now has in game gold, Player 2 now has game time.
The way I see it, the game economy would remain untouched, as RL money doesn't spawn additional gold in game. However, this system might make one feel like a sucker. (I don't, but I'm sure someone would have that feeling). Gold farmers would be stressed out? Don't think so, bots still doesn't cost anything to be employed.
Pay to play is definitely what I want because someone has to pay for our beloved dev's salary. And we all want great content right? Unless you want some game that has limited content unless you sub, or a game that has ridiculous amount of micro transactions that if you pay, you'll either look ridiculously unique, or gets some advantage over others.
Do want to know what the community thinks. Poll choices made anonymous due to sensitivity of issue.
Edited by Aeradon on 16 May 2014 03:02 Recently a company has launched a distinctive Play to Pay system. The system is as follows:
1. Player 1 subscribes monthly, has a lot of money IRL but has no time to play.
2. Player 2 is a student with not much cash but tonnes of time.
3. Player 1 buys additional game time and auction it for in game gold, Player 2 buys game time with in game gold. Player 1 now has in game gold, Player 2 now has game time.
The way I see it, the game economy would remain untouched, as RL money doesn't spawn additional gold in game. However, this system might make one feel like a sucker. (I don't, but I'm sure someone would have that feeling). Gold farmers would be stressed out? Don't think so, bots still doesn't cost anything to be employed.
Pay to play is definitely what I want because someone has to pay for our beloved dev's salary. And we all want great content right? Unless you want some game that has limited content unless you sub, or a game that has ridiculous amount of micro transactions that if you pay, you'll either look ridiculously unique, or gets some advantage over others.
Do want to know what the community thinks. Poll choices made anonymous due to sensitivity of issue.
People keep telling me they're gonna buy me an ale. They never do.
There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's culture. And the Elves.
Help make this compilation complete!
Compilation of Ideas and Suggestions
There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's culture. And the Elves.
Help make this compilation complete!
Compilation of Ideas and Suggestions
Full subscription based (PayToPlay) or combine with play to pay? NO F2P. 30 votes
Pay To Play only. Monthly subscriptions as of current state.
80%
24 votes
Pay To Play + Play To Pay. Monthly subscriptions with trade-able in game time.
13%
4 votes
Pay To Play + Free To Play with limitations + ridiculous micro-transactions. Do not expect content with F2P.
3%
1 vote
Total F2P. Game shuts down in months with dev kids starving.
3%
1 vote
0
-
Artemiisia✭✭✭✭✭
✭I voted pay to play only
Because I agree with you, the devs used lots of time making the game, and using lots of time making new content, fixing the game and dealing with costumer service.
They deserve some kind of payment for their hard work
and a 6 month sup is only ~2 us a day, nearly impossible getting hours upon hours of entertainment for that kind of money
2 -
GreySix✭✭✭✭✭
✭I like the system SWTOR has set up. You can play for free, but its a hamstrung version, and stuff that P2P types get will cost extra.Crotchety Old Man Guild
"Hey you, get off my lawn!"0 -
Alpha_Protocol✭✭✭The system you're referring to for Wildstar isn't new. EVE Online has been doing it for years. It's essentially a subscription model that allows players to indirectly buy gold.
How about no. Not a fan. Direct sub-model is the way to go.Edited by Alpha_Protocol on 16 May 2014 15:441 -
frwinters_ESO✭✭✭✭Overall a F2P game is never F2P cause of cash shops and expansions. Statistically, a game can make more money on F2P because most people are impulse buyers. Having a monthly sub generally, nto all the time, ends up being cheaper for most people overall.1 -
JosephChip✭✭✭Keep it pure subscription based. We pay few bucks each month and receive all quality contents.0 -
AngryNord✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I can see them removing the initial purchase of the game itself, and keeping the sub (with a two-week 'test' period for those who want to try it out) such as DAoC and Ultima Online, among others, but hopefully it won't go full F2P... If so, expect having to pay for the next expansion...0 -
Melian✭✭✭✭Someone else mentioned that "play to pay" thing before and my opinion is still the same: it's nothing but pay to win and I wouldn't play a game that had that system.0
-
Yasha✭✭✭✭What a ridiculous poll. You put up 4 choices but make totally biased (and untrue) statements about 2 of them, essentially only giving us 2 choices.
Anyway, the creed system has been done before in mmos and it worked well for me.0 -
Aeradon✭✭✭✭✭What a ridiculous poll. You put up 4 choices but make totally biased (and untrue) statements about 2 of them, essentially only giving us 2 choices.
Anyway, the creed system has been done before in mmos and it worked well for me.
Well, read the title.
Free to play was never an option and the idea is constantly pushed away by the devs. Biased or not, it's how I see it. $200 million budget spanned over 5 years of development, NPV and over budget is bound to come into consideration when the subscription plan is proposed.
Let's take a look at the current situation, ZOS alone is expanding it's workforce by a whooping 75 vacancies just to support ESO alone. With the investment put in and the inflating operating expenditure (HR and hardware wise), it won't survive F2P. With fair game in mind, F2P micro transactions would be cosmetic only, personally I spend like mad on in game cosmetics, but many deemed myself as an idiot.
F2P + micro transactions doesn't make sense; UNLESS the company proposes a very complete game that doesn't expect much huge expansion (every expansion takes an amount above 50% of annual sub proposed by other games), together with a product life cycle that they hope to cannibalise within 3-5 years. Plus the in game world has weird things that do not fit lore because they run out of things to sell in micros.
Just my opinion, I'm open to your thoughts.
Edited by Aeradon on 19 May 2014 04:06People keep telling me they're gonna buy me an ale. They never do.
There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's culture. And the Elves.
Help make this compilation complete!
Compilation of Ideas and Suggestions0