SWTOR

[eldaec]

One of Dev videos implied they use quick-travel, ie: once you discover a place you can click on it once in the world map to teleport there.

[eldaec]

Do we have any signal on the cost plan for this thing?

Seeing how EA generally insist on RMT cheat mode gear in *single player* games, it is hard to imagine that this won't be lousy with RMT.


Pay-per-storyline could actually be reasonable model in this game, though I suspect EA wll want to go the easier shittier route and pay per +2 Lightsabre of Swishiness. I haven't decided whether this bothers me given that it seems more of a single player game with other people, rather than a traditional MMOG.

[Malakili]

Ugh, I hope not. 

[Sky]

I haven't decided whether this bothers me given that it seems more of a single player game with other people, rather than a traditional MMOG.

Yeah, they should put in group quests, warfronts, open pvp and raids. They so stupid.

[Ratman_tf]

They should charge people to play solo, and make the multiplayer stuff free.

Fucking moneyhats made out of moneyhats.

[Threash]

Leveling in MMOs is always a single player game with other people, this one attempts to at least make it a good single player game.

[sam, an eggplant]

Not always, just post-WoW. Earlier dikus (meaning basically Everquest) forced player dependence to level.

[eldaec]

I haven't decided whether this bothers me given that it seems more of a single player game with other people, rather than a traditional MMOG.

Yeah, they should put in group quests, warfronts, open pvp and raids. They so stupid.

I wasn't bitching about it - just saying it means I care less about the RMT stuff. It doesn't bother me (much) in Dragon Age, and I guess the same applies here.

[Murgos]

Not always, just post-WoW. Earlier dikus (meaning basically Everquest) forced player dependence to level.

And everyone bitched about it constantly.  Except Necros and Druids, of course.

[Sky]

I did play a necro....

Then they made us mana clerics 

[sam, an eggplant]

Yeah, this is 2011, player dependence for initial progression is obviously archaic design. Rereading my post, I was being annoyingly pedantic. Sorry.

As for SWTOR's business model, you can read the beta testing agreement here. Start reading at section H.

That doesn't necessarily mean they definitively will be using microtransactions; that page hasn't changed since 2009 and I'm not saying the beta has them (or that it doesn't). They're definitely thinking about it, that's all.

I doubt anyone is surprised, it's EA, they'd pry the fillings out of your teeth if they thought they could get away with it.

[Malakili]

If they do a transactions things I hope they at least do it LOTRO style where I could still just sub and be done with it.

[sam, an eggplant]

There's no way in hell SWTOR will be F2P at release.

[Malakili]

There's no way in hell SWTOR will be F2P at release.

I'm assuming at the very least a box buy either way.  Buy I suppose what you are really saying is monthly fee + buying shit, and thats entirely possible, hell even Champions Online tried to pull that off on release, and they didn't have 1/10th the interest this game does. 

[UnSub]

Box cost (plus probably 5 different collector's editions) + sub fee + microtrans on cosmetics / transfer tokens + paid expansions down the line.

EA needs this game to pay.

A major problem with that model is that players aren't as patient with sub-based games as they once were, especially with everything else going F2P.

[Evildrider]

So 60 bucks for a lightsaber hilt that looks like Darth Vader's?   

[Amaron]

I doubt they'll really deviate from WoW's MT model.   Sparkle pony + subscription is pretty much top of the line.

[Tannhauser]

So 60 bucks for a lightsaber hilt that looks like Darth Vader's?   

Don't be stupid, no one is crazy/greedy enough to charge $60 on a vanity item!

/strolls away whistling

[Merusk]

I doubt they'll really deviate from WoW's MT model.   Sparkle pony + subscription is pretty much top of the line.

No.  Watch the presentation about f2p and specifically Battlefield Heroes Ginaz posted in the PC gaming forum: http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=20961.0

EA learned that people will bitch and froth but really won't unsubscribe enmasse.  Even if the ones who bitch DO unsubscribe it's only 1/4 of your userbase that ever sees that bitching because they're the ones who use the forums.   They also specifically mention powerups, so I expect to see at least a few of those in the inevitable shop.

The day is quickly coming that I'm going to stop playing new games, because it's going to be pay to win or compete, as I knew it would.

[Amaron]

Watch the presentation about f2p and specifically Battlefield Heroes Ginaz posted in the PC gaming forum: http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=20961.0

  I'm watching it and it is indeed interesting but Battlefield Heroes was never a subscription game was it?   I thought it was always supported by MT.   I never played it or even payed attention to it so bear with me.

[Lantyssa]

So 60 bucks for a lightsaber hilt that looks like Darth Vader's?   

Don't be stupid, no one is crazy/greedy enough to charge $60 on a vanity item!

What ever do you mean, good chap?

*cleans her monocle*

[Sky]

The day is quickly coming that I'm going to stop playing new games, because it's going to be pay to win or compete, as I knew it would.

To cautiously play devil's advocate, it's always been that way, but previously the currency has been time and willingness to put up with nerd drama and cat herding.

I'm almost of a mind to say I'd rather drop a reasonable amount (I think $25 for a mount is NOT reasonable) to bypass that raid nonsense and just be able to play with cool toys.

[Malakili]

The day is quickly coming that I'm going to stop playing new games, because it's going to be pay to win or compete, as I knew it would.

To cautiously play devil's advocate, it's always been that way, but previously the currency has been time and willingness to put up with nerd drama and cat herding.

I'm almost of a mind to say I'd rather drop a reasonable amount (I think $25 for a mount is NOT reasonable) to bypass that raid nonsense and just be able to play with cool toys.

Thats fine with cosmetic stuff and quality of life stuff like a cool mount, but take away loot progression and it seems like you are taking away one of the key reasons to even play diku games.

[tmp]

I'm almost of a mind to say I'd rather drop a reasonable amount (I think $25 for a mount is NOT reasonable) to bypass that raid nonsense and just be able to play with cool toys.

What cool toys?

[eldaec]

Watch the presentation about f2p and specifically Battlefield Heroes Ginaz posted in the PC gaming forum: http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=20961.0

  I'm watching it and it is indeed interesting but Battlefield Heroes was never a subscription game was it?   I thought it was always supported by MT.   I never played it or even payed attention to it so bear with me.

I never fully see why people would expect a firewall between RMT and subscription games.

Total cost? People seem more than happy to drop a lot more cash on RMT games (see M:tG), so much so they make a monthly sub look irrelevant.

I suspect it is the fact that most subs games are CRPGs that makes it feel wrong. Having the player buy shit for a character breaks the distinction between the two. In a game like Magic, or even a more sport based mmo like GW, the character is less critical, and so as long as RMT is driving variety more than pure power, you can build a sustainable game regardless of whether there is also a subscription.

I have no strong feelings about pay for char slots pay for quests or new classes. But pay for gear as in DA or the Sony exchange nonsense seems completely out of place in swtor. Ignoring it may be viable though, in which whatever.

[Merusk]

I'm no 'purist' who demands time in game > all and I don't disagree with RMT in theory.  It's the practice and pricing that are driving me away from games.

I agree that $25 for a useless trinket like that is too much, but the market disagrees and would probably even support up to $35 for the same mount.  

When it begins to add advantage power-ups like extra armor, health and such is when I'll be done with PVP.  When it moves on to exclusive classes/ abilities and the best weaponry, etc. is when I'll be done with the games as a whole.

Some might say, "Well it makes it no different than MTG or LoL where you have to spend a bunch to compete."  Yeah, I don't play those games anymore, either.  I'll drop a few bucks for a short time, but I'm long past spending that kind of cash for an electronic game.  I want something tangible in return for my expense.  At least if I took up golf I'd be able to use it in the business world.

Watch the presentation about f2p and specifically Battlefield Heroes Ginaz posted in the PC gaming forum: http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=20961.0

  I'm watching it and it is indeed interesting but Battlefield Heroes was never a subscription game was it?   I thought it was always supported by MT.   I never played it or even payed attention to it so bear with me.

It was not, no.  It was, however, a testbed and you can bet that its lessons will be spread throughout the EAverse, including sub games.   They'll start small and when they learn what will make sub players bitch but not flee and they'll begin expanding it quickly.  

$15/month has been the price point for far too long. Consider that $9.75 moved to $15 in less time than we've lived with the $15 price point and our budgets are much larger these days.  This is how they'll generate additional revenue without raising the price, much like airlines keeping ticket prices artifically low by charging you add-on fees for what used to be included as part of the package.

[Malakili]

$15/month has been the price point for far too long. Consider that $9.75 moved to $15 in less time than we've lived with the $15 price point and our budgets are much larger these days.  This is how they'll generate additional revenue without raising the price, much like airlines keeping ticket prices artifically low by charging you add-on fees for what used to be included as part of the package.

I think this is ultimately roughly why its happened, but I'd frankly rather pay 20 bucks a month for a game if I really wanted to play it rather than feeling pressure to pick up incidentals in addition to my 15.  I think in some cases I am a purist though.  One of the appeals to me in video games was that it sort of levels out real life economic advantages.  I know that is in part a fantasy on  my part, but there is something nice about 15 bucks being a relatively low bar, and then its what you do in game that counts.  You might be in the lower 50% of earners, but you can be in the top 5% of players.

[eldaec]

The issue of "oh noes poor people!" is also over done.

If you are playing a specific game/hobby 10-20 hours a week, only the destitute can't afford more than $5 a week. You spend much more on beer, tv, cinema etc.

The bigger issue is how the under 10 hour/week crew stay interested. But this is a design problem that exists with time= power as well. Most RMT models do a bad job at scaling cost to time, when really this should be one of their advantages over subscription. Again MtG is an exception.

[UnSub]

It's never really about the $ amount, it's about value.

You charge $20 a month and you are over the psychological price point that the majority of MMO players see as the top level for a sub fee. At $20 a month, you are saying your title is $5 a month better than WoW and players are going to be brutal about that difference.

From memory, the first MMO that hit the $15 a month was Lineage, which copped the flak for being an overpriced Korean title, then the other competitors raised their prices after it had become more familiar to players.

At one point the market might have accepted a $20 a month sub fee for a new title (EQ had their premium pass, didn't they?) but the growth of F2P means that it probably wouldn't be a sustainable price point. The question isn't, "Can I afford $20 a month?", it's "Can I afford $20 a month, and is that $20 best spent on that one title that costs $20 a month, that one title that costs $15 a month or that F2P I can probably get away with only spending $10 a month on, or not spending a dime on if I don't want to?". Even if the $20 a month game is better than the F2P title, free is free and you can make accommodations for it.

[Malakili]

The issue of "oh noes poor people!" is also over done.

If you are playing a specific game/hobby 10-20 hours a week, only the destitute can't afford more than $5 a week. You spend much more on beer, tv, cinema etc.

The bigger issue is how the under 10 hour/week crew stay interested. But this is a design problem that exists with time= power as well. Most RMT models do a bad job at scaling cost to time, when really this should be one of their advantages over subscription. Again MtG is an exception.

It isn't so much "oh noes poor people" as it is just a principled thing.  I prefer as little real life cross over as possible in terms of social standing.  This is probably a hold over from my liking of the old virtual worlds model.    I'm willing to back off this line though because its actually incidental to a bigger issue for me personally:

Being able to log in and leave the "real world" behind while in game is a significant part of why I liked MMORPGs in the first place.   Adding in cash shops in generally shatters that as its constantly posing a real world financial question to me, where as normally I make that financial decision one a month and then thats it.  I'd rather pay 20 bucks a month for the "privilige" of not having to think about it anymore than pay 10 bucks (total) a month while being constantly confronted with questions of "what should I buy."   

[Simond]

As long as the DLC is purely cosmetic, I give zero shits. Someone wants to pay dollars for lightsaber colours or mount/speeder/etc. skins or a kickin' rad paint job for their Not-YT1300, more power to 'em.

[Lakov_Sanite]

It's not about DLC impacting gameplay directly though, it's about getting an inferior product and still paying a company money. Things like art assets and designers are starting to be focused on the dlc where the people paying regular, non premium get a sub-standard product.

[luckton]

It's not about DLC impacting gameplay directly though, it's about getting an inferior product and still paying a company money. Things like art assets and designers are starting to be focused on the dlc where the people paying regular, non premium get a sub-standard product.

I agree.  If I'm paying 15 bones a month to grind through a game into to get phat loots, they better be damned good looking phat loots.  If all their quality is going to go to DLC "cosmetic" stuff, why do I want to play a game that would make me look like a pleb?

[Sky]

I agree.  If I'm paying 15 bones a month to grind through a game into to get phat loots, they better be damned good looking phat loots.  If all their quality is going to go to DLC "cosmetic" stuff, why do I want to play a game that would make me look like a pleb?

I find myself thinking the same thing about the amount of time I invest in an mmo and looking like a plebe because I don't raid. 

[Malakili]

I agree.  If I'm paying 15 bones a month to grind through a game into to get phat loots, they better be damned good looking phat loots.  If all their quality is going to go to DLC "cosmetic" stuff, why do I want to play a game that would make me look like a pleb?

I find myself thinking the same thing about the amount of time I invest in an mmo and looking like a plebe because I don't raid. 

There is a difference though, one is actually in game and one isn't.  I remember some people I knew back in vanilla WoW who loved gold sellers because they were like "I could just work a few extra hours at my job and make WAY more gold than if I actually farmed in game for that same time"  RMT makes that a normal mentality, and like I said earlier, I like leaving the real world behind as much as possible when playing these things.