Planetside 2

[Mrbloodworth]

PS1 Main Title Re-Orchestrated

Travel Temperate Vocal Mix

[Nonentity]

http://www.planetside-universe.com/news-chinese-interview-with-john-smedley-2538.htm

Supposedly some interview with Smed from China indicates that the game will be free to play, with no idea of how they're going to microtransact their title yet.

[eldaec]

Hats.

[Ghambit]

http://www.planetside-universe.com/news-chinese-interview-with-john-smedley-2538.htm

Supposedly some interview with Smed from China indicates that the game will be free to play, with no idea of how they're going to microtransact their title yet.

Kind of insignificant considering they barely know how they're gonna make the game yet.

[eldaec]

What are you talking about? They already decided it is a true sequel and successor to Planetside. Give the designers a break, sheesh.

[Speedy Cerviche]

Man I really dislike F2P...

So what's it going to be? Buying XP points so you can unlock skills/certs faster than leveling? I though Planetside isn't supposed to have a huge XP grind anyways, so they can't sell many XP boosters like a lot of asian MMOs do.

With a subscription the devs are focused on making the game better overall to attract and retain subs. That includes stuff like adding and improving core game systems.

With a F2P system they'll be under constant pressure to keep adding new items and skills for players to buy, cuz that pays the bills. Also they'll be under pressure to make the new items and skills attractive to buy (not just superfluous gimmicks), which means juicing their power.

For a game that has already admitted a lot of depth systems (like dynamic weather) won't be in at release but they have an ambitious content patching schedule, the pressure to churn out new revenue generating items will be a distraction to the devs also.

They can deny this all they want, and claim it will all be fair, but there's always going to be a temptation to add must-have items to boost profits when all revenue flows through this, and the easiest way to make it must-have is to add +1 to it.

[01101010]

Man I really dislike F2P...

So what's it going to be? Buying XP points so you can unlock skills/certs faster than leveling? I though Planetside isn't supposed to have a huge XP grind anyways, so they can't sell many XP boosters like a lot of asian MMOs do.

With a subscription the devs are focused on making the game better overall to attract and retain subs. That includes stuff like adding and improving core game systems.

With a F2P system they'll be under constant pressure to keep adding new items and skills for players to buy, cuz that pays the bills. Also they'll be under pressure to make the new items and skills attractive to buy (not just superfluous gimmicks), which means juicing their power.

For a game that has already admitted a lot of depth systems (like dynamic weather) won't be in at release but they have an ambitious content patching schedule, the pressure to churn out new revenue generating items will be a distraction to the devs also.

They can deny this all they want, and claim it will all be fair, but there's always going to be a temptation to add must-have items to boost profits when all revenue flows through this, and the easiest way to make it must-have is to add +1 to it.

They could always go the GW's model and release a crap load of expansions; one every 6-8 months with some new stuff.

But what we all cannot forget: This is SOE.

[shiznitz]

I will be buying the best of everything and still suck! YAY!

I hope I can buy extra wheels for my buggy.  And I want a motorcycle.  And a hover board - with guns! And a hat with fuzzy ears.  And a gun shaped liked a dildo!

[Simond]

Hats.

Of money?  

Anyway, it's bloody amusing that ISTR that the number one complaint about Planetside-at-launch was "it's fun, but it's not $15/m fun" and now that the sequel is going F2P people are complaining about that, too.

[Surlyboi]

Don't you know we can't have nice things?

[shiznitz]

I think F2P will work fine. That means lots of fodder.  That keeps it fun.

[DLRiley]

The fodder have to find the game fun to stay 

[shiznitz]

There will be enough churn in the fodder to keep it busy for a good while. 

[tazelbain]

That's niche thinking.

[Dren]

F2P benefits:
- Always have the latest expansions and can play with friends anytime even if you waited to start 6 mo.s after launch. (Don't have to buy the last 2 expansions + game)
- Capped micro-trans to $14.99/mo allows you to pay for game if you feel you like it enough, but prevents deep pockets from dominating.  Don't want to pay?  Then you probably don't want to play either unless you are just that cheap.  Or maybe you are a masochist and play bad games just because they are free?
- Need to slow down your play due to RL or just waning interest?  No penalty in doing so.  
- Not sure about the game, need a demo?  Built-in!
- Loving the game and want the ingame fluff?  Buy it.  Don't love it?  Don't buy it.
- Population churn is a good thing in these games and there ain't no party like a F2P party cuz it don't stop...  Yeah, I went there.

All these F2P games that are out and coming out have really made me a fan.  The only downside is that you can't have your little niche game with a community that stays the same for years.  I've gotten over this and I tend to think game companies haven't found that a good business proposition in the long run either.

One thing to get ready for?  Launch day better have massive server power ready.  Feasibly the only way I can see them handling it is to stagger the launch in some way.

[HaemishM]

It's SOE. I'm quite sure they'll be staggering at launch and for quite a while afterwards. 

[shiznitz]

F  The only downside is that you can't have your little niche game with a community that stays the same for years.  I've gotten over this and I tend to think game companies haven't found that a good business proposition in the long run either.

That is exactly right.  No community is forever, especially on the internet, so as a developer you would be left with a slowly (if you are lucky) shrinking player base to which one is forced to tailor development towards which makes the game harder and harder for new players to enjoy.  The only way to survive is raise prices, which maintains profitability in the short term at the expense of speeding up the decline of your playerbase.

[Speedy Cerviche]

Huh? These games can last a long time if well designed and maintained and a monthly subscription is a money machine.

[shiznitz]

Huh? These games can last a long time if well designed and maintained and a monthly subscription is a money machine.

Wow, EQ1 in the numerator and dozens in the denominator.

[Dren]

Huh? These games can last a long time if well designed and maintained and a monthly subscription is a money machine.

Wow, EQ1 in the numerator and dozens in the denominator.

Even WoW realized they needed to lower the hurdle to start for new players by offering free trial accounts.  Not as open ended as your more current F2P models, but has some of the benefits.  I don't know much about EQ1 these days, but I'm guessing they have something similar.

[UnSub]

Huh? These games can last a long time if well designed and maintained and a monthly subscription is a money machine.

That was the case at one time, but I think that time has passed.

[DLRiley]

Huh? These games can last a long time if well designed and maintained and a monthly subscription is a money machine.

That was the case at one time, but I think that time has passed.

Like 4 years ago.

[Speedy Cerviche]

If I had confidence in my MMO's quality and appealling persistent elements I would go a sub model. Confident it can generate revenues through retention with solid MMO persistence like heavy guild bonds, and personal stakes too (houses, collections, business ventures). Seems like a better way to build a great MMO game than churning out +1 items, grind relief exp bonuses, and fats/ponies to meet revenue targets.

F2P is more suited for if your MMO flames out on poor design/execution and you need to try it as a desperation "chapter 11" maneuver to keep it from becoming an unappealing ghost town while you fix it, or your game is really just an arena game you couldn't charge a sub for, but you tack on a MMO shell and then add a F2P store to generate revenues (world of tanks). That or your MMO is just a skinner box for achievement addicts and you want a slice of this farmville marketshare. That's fine and all, but some people out there are still trying to build high quality, long term persistence MMO gameworlds that don't fit into one of those cheese catagories. Games like Archeage, SWTOR, or as Smedly talks it up, PS2 which would have sophisticated clan systems and resource economy.

[DLRiley]

Speedy its like haven't been paying attention to the last 6 years of mmo's, your debate comes 4 years too late. F2P won, the neck beard sub players voted with there wallets and chose WoW, EvE, or more subs to crappy games made 8 years ago. If you wanted to win the debate pay for AoC, or WAR, or give Aion some western subs. Pretend Rift isn't a 2007 rendition of EQ2. But nope, you cancel your sub to all those games requiring "deep social networks" to function, some of you even went full UQ/SWG nostalgia and gave your dollars to darkfall and FE, only to quite them anyway (with darkfall making players pony up for DF2, and FE going to f2p while still circling the drain). The internet has spoken, mmo's aren't deep, we barely like playing them, and we sure as hell don't feel like paying for them. To every free-trail you played the crap out of and canceled after a month worth of play, I salute you.

[Speedy Cerviche]

Games like DF and FE are going down the drain because they have massive problems as games. I know because I played DF for almost 2 years and gave up a few months ago to see if they can pull off this "DF2.0" jesus relaunch, those prospects not looking so good these days. Aeon, Rift, war, star trek, aoc were flops because they're buggy, low content, repetitive, shallow, unsatisfying.

Apparently making a quality MMO is HARD. Eve and WOW have done quite well with high quality work. SWTOR, Archage, PS2 will as well, if they can execute. There's no magic formula here, it's about execution. Satisying gamers with polish, engaging content, depth, quality customer service/communication, proper game balance, etc. All the things that make a game good. If this is what you set out to do and pull it off, you can be rewarded with a lot of money with subscriptions.

My point is that a cash shop F2P model is (STILL) a detraction from this high quality game, because quality and appeal won't be directly tied to your revenue stream like on a sub model. A quality game will get people in the door, but you will also need to sell them crap in your cash shop to pay the bills and satisfy your investors.

Now of course there are degrees of cash shop. There are shops that sell what are essentially subscriptions (5-90 day EXP boosters that alleviate the F2P aka trial mode's crushing grind). There are shops that sell novelty cosmetic items. They are a distraction that can turn people off or create controversy (wrecks immersion when things get too goofy like TF2, or the EvE 45$ monacle drama). Then there are the pay2win games selling +1 items in cash shops. The thing that worries people is the temptation to cross the line from novelty to cash grab. One bad quarter and suddenly the devs might be under pressure to boost earnings or see layoffs. What's the easier way to boost revenues? Coming out with a quality polished xpac/patch that adds depth and balance with new or improved game systems, thus attracting new and returning players? Or churn out a bunch of pay2win +1 weapons that become "essential" for any self respecting power gamer? Obviously the latter is easier, but it's the former that will make your game a decade long success like Eve or WoW, and if you can pull off the former then recurring subs will moot your need for f2p cash shop gimmicks.

[DLRiley]

Are we talking about the same internet? EvE has been treating its customers like cows for years, WoW was just made with competence in a genre that was circling mediocrity in the tamer days of 2004. The game design that ruled the pent house of 2003, is the same game design being carried 8 years later, with more nostalgia and less dollars interested, more "fine tuning" less actual thinking. The fact that your willing to play DF for 2 years a game that offers nothing but open space and a chat box should tell me enough... In other words, F2P isn't winning because making a successful sub game is hard, its because its 2011 and every successful sub game looks more like ancient dinosaurs mowing on the neck beards of the hardcore who are going to be further milked anyway if the guys at EvE are any indication of your future (which hint they are).

[Speedy Cerviche]

Are we talking about the same internet? EvE has been treating its customers like cows for years, WoW was just made with competence in a genre that was circling mediocrity in the tamer days of 2004. The game design that ruled the pent house of 2003, is the same game design being carried 8 years later, with more nostalgia and less dollars interested, more "fine tuning" less actual thinking. The fact that your willing to play DF for 2 years a game that offers nothing but open space and a chat box should tell me enough... In other words, F2P isn't winning because making a successful sub game is hard, its because its 2011 and every successful sub game looks more like ancient dinosaurs mowing on the neck beards of the hardcore who are going to be further milked anyway if the guys at EvE are any indication of your future (which hint they are).

Yeah EvE and WoW seem to have hit a plateau, they are still huge subscription cash machines from their initial success and multi year growth run up, and probably will be pumping out nice revenues for the next 5 years at least even if the devs stopped all updates today and milked it with a skeleton crew.

I know DF gets bashed a lot around here, but it still has the best physics in a MMO to date, and is the best manual aim one too. It's inability to grow steadily is due to developer incompetence. Anyways, we're talking about a genre where there is 5+ years of development for these games and even then there's no guarantee they'll come out decent at the end. How many quality MMOs have even been released these past few years that didn't flame out on launch? Painting them as dinosaurs just cuz they suck is a poor corrallation. To me 2012 seems like it could have some winners after some pretty lean years for MMO gaming.

[DLRiley]

By 2003 standards, WAR and AoC would have been jizzing awesome. So would Aion. They were unfortunately released at the wrong time, several years too late. WoW was a 2004 game released in 2004. SWOTR doesn't sound like a game that left the 2004 era of EverQuest 2. Maybe its a 2007 game released in 2012...not an improvement, may get a barely passing because of BioWare and StarWars having a bastard child. Gamers never paid full price for old games, the internet is just catching up.

[Mrbloodworth]

[shiznitz]

Manned, deployable turrets?  NICE.

[snowwy]

XP-pinjatas 

[Mrbloodworth]

Manned, deployable turrets?  NICE.

XP-pinjatas 

Had them in PS One.

[01101010]

If you can deploy them inside, I'll shit my pants. Or hell, right in front of a base door. 

[Surlyboi]

Probably gonna be wall mounted again.

[eldaec]

By 2003 standards, WAR and AoC would have been jizzing awesome. So would Aion. They were unfortunately released at the wrong time, several years too late. WoW was a 2004 game released in 2004. SWOTR doesn't sound like a game that left the 2004 era of EverQuest 2. Maybe its a 2007 game released in 2012...not an improvement, may get a barely passing because of BioWare and StarWars having a bastard child. Gamers never paid full price for old games, the internet is just catching up.

WoW was nowhere near a 2004 game. Design was locked around 2001 and it showed. That is what gives swtor the confidence to keep the core mechanics relatively bland.