PS2 isn't wow or gw2 with loads of pve content, it's all pvp, so it needs a large player base to work. I think F2P is necessary to keep the population high and stop it from being a massive failure, because a pvp focused game can't withstand slow growth aswell as pve games can, it needs to start high and stay there.
*** Official Planetside 2 Thread ***
- Thread starter Swifty55
- Start date
I hear this argument time and again in relation to F2P models and cross-server group finder/LFG tools in MMOs. The argument that automatic and/or cross-server match-making tools reduce the social aspect of grouping and that F2P introduces more twits* into the game.
You know what. I've played a lot of MMOs, both subbed and F2P. The vast majority of the people I meet in-game are absolutely fine. Many of them don't talk much but if for example we're both trying to find the same in-game object or mob and I send them a group invite, they join up, say hi and thanks and we go our seperate ways when we're done. Every now and then I encounter some self-centred, entitled twit who has no place in a social game. They don't usually last long.
I've also played a lot of Global Agenda, Tribes Ascend and BF3. Again, the majority of the people are perfectly reasonable human beings (although often rather clueless in BF3 & TA pubs) with the occasional twit.
It's been my experience that a certain percentage of the online population is comprised of twits, but most people play online games to have fun with other people. And it's always the same percentage regardless of whether the game I'm playing is box-price, sub, F2P or whatever.
As for whether it should be F2P or sub? It should be F2P. Planetside 1's biggest problem was low population. A 100% PvP game like this needs a big population to keep it going - and not many people are willing to pay a sub to play a FPS.
*I'm using the word "twit" in lieu of more appropriate & descriptive terms that might get my forum account suspended
There is a difference between Box Purchase, Subscription and F2P models.
GW2 is Box Purchase Only with an F2P model for the subscription part
WoW is Box Purchase + Sub
PS2 will be a full on F2P model with no investment necessary.
The latter, the one which PS2 subscribes to is the most prone to failure. There is no rule that states full on F2P games are all bad but a majority of them are in one way or another. A full F2P model carries the simple fact that the game will be built on an absolute shoe string of a budget purely because they can only speculate profit and have no reliance on box sales or subscriptions. Where this lower budget impacts changes from title to title but ranges from licensing of the game engine (Cheap cheap cheap or AAA engine?), art assets, 'lore' aspect depth (Cheap scripts/quests or proper stuff?) etc etc.
Brink was the biggest failure of the last couple of years if you ask me but at least they had box sales.
I would prefer a F2P model combined with box sales (ALA GW2) as you can at least guarantee some degree of investment into development.
I do not see how PS2 can avoid Pay2Win. It's a PvP FPS title, a genre which usually attracts far less players who spend money on vanity and where bought items can represent an advantage far more easily. In an MMO it does not overly matter too much that players can pay for XP/level boosts or access to travel mounts faster. It does matter in a competitive PvP FPS environment.
So, where will PS2 make it's money on a F2P model without Pay2Win elements where a large amount of the player base plays for the PvP content and not having shiny gold armor nobody else has?
GW2 is Box Purchase Only with an F2P model for the subscription part
WoW is Box Purchase + Sub
PS2 will be a full on F2P model with no investment necessary.
The latter, the one which PS2 subscribes to is the most prone to failure. There is no rule that states full on F2P games are all bad but a majority of them are in one way or another. A full F2P model carries the simple fact that the game will be built on an absolute shoe string of a budget purely because they can only speculate profit and have no reliance on box sales or subscriptions. Where this lower budget impacts changes from title to title but ranges from licensing of the game engine (Cheap cheap cheap or AAA engine?), art assets, 'lore' aspect depth (Cheap scripts/quests or proper stuff?) etc etc.
Brink was the biggest failure of the last couple of years if you ask me but at least they had box sales.
I would prefer a F2P model combined with box sales (ALA GW2) as you can at least guarantee some degree of investment into development.
I do not see how PS2 can avoid Pay2Win. It's a PvP FPS title, a genre which usually attracts far less players who spend money on vanity and where bought items can represent an advantage far more easily. In an MMO it does not overly matter too much that players can pay for XP/level boosts or access to travel mounts faster. It does matter in a competitive PvP FPS environment.
So, where will PS2 make it's money on a F2P model without Pay2Win elements where a large amount of the player base plays for the PvP content and not having shiny gold armor nobody else has?
Last edited:
For the first time I kinda agree with your comments and its beats the dumb its F2P so it sucks type comment.
I do not how ever think they have built this game on a shoestring I think they believe that there is a lot of money to be made from a fully F2P game with sideways add ons that you pay for, and people will pay.
They to what I have seen seem to going the right way.
Yes I to would have preferred that some money be paid up front because then the hackers/grifers would think twice before doing it.
I also think you wrong on the pay2win as the one thing I'm pretty sure that they are aware of is if they went down that route it would kill this game quicker than if it was buy the box and sub TsW type prices.
I also agree with what Rigsta said.
I think although there wont be a blatant pay2win aspect there might be some more subtle ones like double XP or priority access to vehicles when there is a limit on the number of them. World of Tanks has pay2win aspects yet still works quite well for those who don't choose to use them.
However this is all speculation as we don't really know how far they will stray into it until the game launches.
However this is all speculation as we don't really know how far they will stray into it until the game launches.
I don't particularly have a problem with pay to win as long as the the overall outlay is similar to a subscription. I would prefer the game to have an initial cost though, the whole completely f2p thing is massively open to abuse by hackers etc, no need to buy another box if you get perma banned, just try again.
For a game in such infancy nobody knows anything about the game for sure and speculation is absolutely and perfectly normal and fine.
If you want to protect your fanboi IP then feel free but do not sit there like you are some kind of authority on the subject.
I would be highly surprised if the finished game does not see you being bested by someone with money because they bought something you did not. "They only won because they abused purchased item X, Y or Z" seems only inevitable and maybe not on launch day, eventually.
I know it because that is what the developers have said. They have addressed the issue of free2play numerous occasions.
Developers working under SoE.
But this works both ways, and unlike you I have played the game .. you just shooting the game down with nothing what so ever to go on.
Like a kid who whining for the sake of whining.
Last edited:
So far I've picked up the following about cash store items:
#1: Purely cosmetic/possibly useful (camo).
#2: I'm sure EXP boosters have been mentioned, and that there will be a constant need for exp due to the sheer scope of the progression system (they've said it would take literally years to unlock everything).
#3: MAYBE weapons/attachments (can also be earned just by playing). I think I remember hearing the phrase "anything from the store that affects combat can also be earned just by playing."
They do seem to be aware that Pay2win = game fails. Balancing is a, erm, female dog when it comes to this type of thing but if they're really committed to making unlocks sidegrades or versatility only then they can chip away at the balance issue until they get it right.
The only restrictions on vehicles I'm aware of are:
#1: Your cooldown timer for that vehicle isn't still counting down. This is 15 minutes by default and can be greatly reduced via the cert progression system - but only one vehicle at a time.
#2: You personally have enough of a particular type of resource (resources are granted to you at intervals, the amount depends on what territories your faction owns).
#3: You can only summon a vehicle at particular places, eg. galaxies/liberators can only be summoned at a tech facility or warp grate iirc.
I do remember hearing Higby saying there are no arbitrary limits of the number of vehicles a faction can have deployed, just the ones I mentioned above.
btw I am not in the tech test, this is all public info
Erm that's pretty much what you were doing by saying "It will fail because it's F2P". To be fair you did expand on that statement a few posts later but you've got to expect some reactions when you make such a sweeping statement.
I'm sure such statements will be made XD Whether or not they'll be accurate or not is another matter.
I envisage something along these lines, because it's more or elss what the devs have described so far: You start a particular class with a primary weapon that's a good all-rounder but can unlock weapons which are better at close quarters at the expense of long range effectiveness and vice versa. Or simply spend the certs/exp/resources you earned while playing that class on another class or a vehicle upgrade.
From what I've gathered so far, the biggest effect the cash shop will have on progression & unlocks is through exp boosters. Which makes sense to me as a regular exp booster purchase would take the place of a subscription.
And if it's not as fair as that, then everyone in the beta who realises it, me included, will be throwing their teddies at SOE until they get it.
Big time, shame it didnt stay on topic insted of everyone arguing. I played ps1 for a long time and looking at the videos makes ps2 look epic cant wait.
It's certainly looking like that, it's not often that I like a game this much, so early in its development.
Not one of the last 4/5 mmo's released did I think in beta, wow, with this one 5 minutes in and I thought wow this could be epic.
There is just something in this game which makes me think it's going to be a massive hit.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,383
Can we get this thread back on track please. If you want to debate the F2P model, make a thread on it. Can we also avoid calling people "fanboys" or any iteration of the word