What type of F2P Model would you all be most accepting of?
#61
Posted 01 November 2011 - 06:21 PM
Oddly enough, I'd like to be proven wrong and see where this goes.
#62
Posted 01 November 2011 - 06:26 PM
#63
Posted 01 November 2011 - 06:37 PM
o Zer0 o, on 01 November 2011 - 06:26 PM, said:
True, while that is the ideal that most people would want to see, truth is, it will probably be more than just that.
Personally, I could live with people spending real money for C-Bills, for the inexperince/lazy/terrible players to quickly repair and replace thier mechs and equipment. Some might consider that "Pay to Win." Me, that makes fireball that once was the Atlas that they spent real money on all the prettier
Edited by foefaller, 01 November 2011 - 06:46 PM.
#64
Posted 01 November 2011 - 06:43 PM
I have seen the Pay To Win thing in other MMOs and it will destroy the gameplay and fun for many players, especially if they are fans of the game.
Pay to Win will eventually destroy the game, so its a poor choice really.
I sincerely hope the devs will learn from other F2P games and not make the same mistakes they did.
I would much rather see people be able to achieve things ingame because they have the skills to do so, rather than because they have their pockets full of money.
#65
Posted 01 November 2011 - 06:43 PM
1. Buy mech schematics (Base mechs). Mechs could be bought single or in pre-set sets of 1 light, 1 med, 1 heavy, 1 assault (as a package deal), everyone starts with a basic Jenner or whatever baseline Piranha decides.
2. Buy 'tons' to purchase schematics. For example buy a 250ton package and be able to pick 'x' amount of scematics that will use up your 250 tons similiar to a lance, but your garage of mechs. Eventually with spending enough you could own one of every mech but depending on price this could be costly.
3. Mechs are free but you have to pay for repairs to them (limits players in a way but its an option)
I would prefer to buy schematics (#1) personally. Taht way you only buy the ones you want to play and no one gets *** hurt they arent equal to someone else of the same weight class etc.
From there you coudl sell upgrades like LRM packs, Med lasers, pulse etc. and make mechs customizable (similiar to mw3 and how it handled customization) now some might htink this is a play to win but you still need skills to pilot and get good kill counts plus repairs on a custom mech could be more expensive and therefore even out over time.
#66
Posted 01 November 2011 - 06:44 PM
#67
Posted 01 November 2011 - 06:47 PM
o Zer0 o, on 01 November 2011 - 06:26 PM, said:
They can add things like if you want to form a guild, you have to pay (I bet they already decided on this), or to lead multiple lances. Personally I would find that acceptable. That would get them a steady stream of revenue without actually gimping the free players.
But seriously, I do wish that they just add a monthly sub and settle the matter. But it cannot be 14.99, it has to be lower than the others as it is a niche universe, after all. Maybe like 7.99? or 9.99 at the most.
#68
Posted 01 November 2011 - 06:49 PM
theforce, on 01 November 2011 - 06:44 PM, said:
Restricting players to weight classes will contradict what they said in trying to avoid player paying for advantages. So no, I'll be upset with that.
But I'm convinced that they already decided to charge for additional mech slots. It makes good sense.
#69
Posted 01 November 2011 - 06:53 PM
Pay to Win No, Pay to shorten/lessen grind, YES.
Cosmetic, Yes.
Extra Slots, YES.
Do not want to see "ER PPC $10", but having "ER PPC 240,000 creds or $10" would be acceptable.
#70
Posted 01 November 2011 - 06:58 PM
theforce, on 01 November 2011 - 06:44 PM, said:
I didnt finish...
Starting everyone off in a Jenner would be ghey, not that there's anything wrong with that.
If team battles are fought at lance level, put a tonnage cap on a lance. Now when I join a battle with friends we can discuss which character to take. Of I join an open battle that already has a guy with an assault, I know I can't take my assault.
This would be tough to implement...
Edited by theforce, 01 November 2011 - 07:01 PM.
#71
Posted 01 November 2011 - 07:01 PM
rollermint, on 01 November 2011 - 06:47 PM, said:
They can add things like if you want to form a guild, you have to pay (I bet they already decided on this), or to lead multiple lances. Personally I would find that acceptable. That would get them a steady stream of revenue without actually gimping the free players.
But seriously, I do wish that they just add a monthly sub and settle the matter. But it cannot be 14.99, it has to be lower than the others as it is a niche universe, after all. Maybe like 7.99? or 9.99 at the most.
They amount of money generated from F2P games is far better for the vast majority of subscription based games out there, that's why a lot of people have been saying that SW TOR will probably be the last big new subscription based MMO.
Proof:
Edited by o Zer0 o, 01 November 2011 - 07:02 PM.
#72
Posted 01 November 2011 - 07:09 PM
Pedroig, on 01 November 2011 - 06:53 PM, said:
We have a winner!
But I'm not really sure about the PPC part though. Borderline acceptable I guess but I rather not have them at all.
#73
Posted 01 November 2011 - 07:11 PM
- Pay for access no, a totally no, and I am sure the developers are not considering this option as it actually punishes the paying customers because they have way less people to play with (just other paying customers).
- "Pay to Win" is an euphemism and I am also sure no developer wants its game to be advertised as a P2W game.
You are missing many other options like for example renting mechs, insurance or XP bonuses.
Also I am perfectly fine with allowing purchasing In Game Currency with real money so you can repair your mech faster, get better mechs or whatever. A different issue, and that is, of course, dev's work is balancing the experience so an Atlas does not battle against a Jenner just because both players are the same level, I think it would be cool to have some kind of handicap system so you know what you are facing and you get better rewards if the battle is not technically even, but if anyone has ever played the tabletop game or the P&P RPG that is the common practice.
#74
Posted 01 November 2011 - 07:15 PM
But please please please, leave the gold ammo, gold equipment etc out.
#75
Posted 01 November 2011 - 07:17 PM
The look of a mech doesn't impact combat but if I shell out 5 bucks and have more heat sinks than you, then that creates an uneven field and can put off potential players.
Some of the things I am thinking about is access to more storage space for gear. More mech slots so I can have a company of mechs instead of only a lance. I know I'll be a sucker for certain mech skins but I don't think we'll ever see them because of legal issues.
#76
Posted 01 November 2011 - 07:21 PM
Looking at some other sub-to-FTP model online games like LOTRO, one of the weaknesses is how complicated their pay structures become.
#77
Posted 01 November 2011 - 07:28 PM
Okay, here is the deal, I want this game to be successful, and in order to do so, you have to make money, this is clear to all of us.
Pay 2 Win is not so bad actually, even though I am usually a 100% Free 2 Play player, maybe not what you want to hear as a developer/publisher, but it is the truth.(I spend RL monsy on these F2P games from time to time as well, just not hundreds of thousands of dollars.)
The way this can work being a F2P game, but with P2W options, is to have an auction house, or a market, or something in game that allows people to trade or buy items, that come from a cash shop with in game currency.
A person buys an item in the cash shop, then puts said item into said "market of some sort" then
F2P player comes along and buys it with in game currency, thus the both of them are happy. Over time "Free 2 Play Joe" catches up with "Pay 2 Win Harry".
People who are 100% F2P don't mind putting in the extra effort to be competative as long as they see there is a way to eventually catch up tot he P2W crowd. Often times your 100% F2P player base is what keeps the game populated and alive. The P2W players have no one to pwn when the F2P players are all gone. They get bored and leave. Which is also what you DON"T want. You can look at the short life of Heroes of the Three Kingdoms for this effect. HOTK was a F2P game at first with pay to win options, then one day they removed the one element of the game that aloowed it's F2P players to catch up over time from the game. HOTK died a very fast death.
This method of the "market" also adds years to the life time of the game, as often times it will make a f2P player play longer to get what he/she wants.
As long as you can keep your F2P players realistically thinking they can catch up to the P2W players you have a winning game.
Whatever you do, DO NOT go with the current business model of timed weapons or accessories. This does not work over time, and causes people to quit playing your games. The current games out there using this method are still around ONLY because they pull players from their already enormous player bases.
Wolf Team is successful, but AERIA games pulls thier players to that game from other games of theirs. I played Wolf Team ages ago, and felt I was forced to play unending hours just to keep being able to equip my guns. A new F2P game is being released soon with this same business model, Blacklight: Retribution, this same thing that happens with WolfTeam will happen on this game too. People will play for a few months, then eventually quit as it become more of a task just to get and make sure you can get your guns the next time you log in. Make this game so you can log in for just a match or two and not come back for a couple days. People need a break sometimes. If you make "timed-Items" this becomes a horrible task, Some one who plays everyday, then has a shift change or something and has a hard time adjusting to thier new schedule will have a hard time staying with your game. After a few weeks of losing thier items over and over again due to them timing out will eventually quit playing your game altogether, because they feel like a prisoner to your game, which is not a fun feeling. So don't do that. You want to keep those players coming back. Forcing them to do so is not the way to do that.
I hope this helps you. I look forward to this game coming out way way way down the road. Read these words, and watch what happens to the games I have listed here, you will see that I am right.
#78
Posted 01 November 2011 - 07:34 PM
#79
Posted 01 November 2011 - 07:40 PM
I am really hoping for a not-WoT model, I loathe the grind/"real-money" conversion of XP between chassis/having to 'unlock' "better" weapons... but will pay a reasonable subscription to get, up-front, the whole package/access to all in the game.
I figure there are a whole lot of seasoned MW vets that will gladly pony up a monthly premium to get the whole works, and just go for it from day-one. Making us start over in a light, under-powered and under-gunned mech, just feels too...disrespectful of the experience we have in the mechverse, and frankly much as I love Battletech/mechs, there is just too much competition for my time with all the other gaming options out there. There is no way I am alone in this...and if this turns into a grind-based, nickel-and-dime microcharge paradigm (a la WoT) then it will really crimp the games growth potential, and frankly ignores all the other potent & attractive games competing for my play-time (and gaming dollar).
I think another perfectly valid poll to conduct, would be: What would you pay as a monthly access fee to get what I described above (full access, no grind, all features)?
Put me down for, oh, up to $20 a month. Annually, that adds up to the retail equivalent of 4 AAA titles a year - and with negligible distrubtion costs via the web vs. console and PC titles on SKUs shrinkwrapped on store shelves, that ought to be a (very!) handsome revenue stream for PGI, even with their hosting-cost overhead. I seriously hope they go for this option...vote early, vote often! :-)
Aloha
-Thag
#80
Posted 01 November 2011 - 08:00 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users













