115520-say-no-to-f2p-page-4

Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6, Page 7
== Content ==
			
{| class="blockquote"
I'll have to agree on this... NCsoft will take what ever measures possible to recoup lost income. I would rather see a cash shop for vanity items than a cash shop for game breaking items.. so i would be more supportive towards a gw2 model than a swtor f2p model. But also remember that the credd system is in place and just because we don't see a mass of players all the time doesnt mean their isnt players dropping big money on credd either.. 
 
Im getting the vibe that the game will be the way it should be in a few more months unfortunately its a shame it wasnt released that way.. these discussions might not exist if it had.. but hinde sight is always 20/20 new ip mmos are a big risk and i applaud carbine for taking on that risk...
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
TERA went free to play and the game exploded into popularity, they also avoid the vicious problem of major Pay To Win tactics.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Ah yes, the MMO infused with RNG boxes. The MMO that actually removed items you were once able to obtain in-game from the vendors and loot tables just so they could sell it on the cash shop (dangerously close to if not actually crossing the line into pay-to-win). The MMO that has become a complete joke in terms of costumes and is really nothing more than a giant advertisement for the absurd cash shop costumes. The MMO that prices their mounts and costumes at ridiculous costs far above what other cash shops usually charge. The MMO that destroyed their cosmetic system, removing from players the ability to create their own unique looks with armor in the game. The MMO that continues to recycle content (welcome back, Fane of Kaprima).
 
No, TERA is absolutely not the MMO you want to bring up as a good F2P model.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Never said it was a good one.
Just an example of one of the better ones.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Never said it was a good one.
Just an example of one of the better ones.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
You sort of implied it was good by its use as an example.
----
			...crap i found Camelot ...such a silly place...this is what i'm reading "i'm going to quit if the developers try anything to bring in more people for me to play with"...REALLY??? you might wanna rethink that policy. ...keep up the negativity it's doing wonders for the game!	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
...crap i found Camelot ...such a silly place...this is what i'm reading "i'm going to quit if the developers try anything to bring in more people for me to play with"...REALLY??? you might wanna rethink that policy. ...keep up the negativity it's doing wonders for the game!
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
"It's not the greastest but it's better than the rest"
 
Playing the game for as much as I have, I've yet to encounter the need to pay anything real life except my costume stuff.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
That TERA is one of the "better" ones, that is all the more evidence that F2P is a horrible model from a consumer perspective.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
It's not when it's done right.
Which is the problem not many people are doing it right.
 
League of Legends is.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
League of Legends isn't an MMO. They sell (permanent) access to characters and character skins. Can you imagine the outcry if you had to pay extra to access a particular class? And character customization is a huge motivator for MMO players, whereas in LoL most of the motivation is just playing the matches.
----
			invested how? monetarily? the CREDD hoarders who use the AH/CREDD station to keep playing for free are they really invested besides their inital box purchase(which by now by not paying a sub  they're out what maybe $15)? somehow i doubt that. the but i'm paying $5...no you're not actually paying $5 the guy who bought the CREDD paid $20 you paid $0.my point don't draw lines in the dirt. be constructive instead of these kind of posts how about ideas to bring people in which is what WE ALL WANT.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
And don't try to "inform" me about things within MMOs, I've been doing this for 11 years, I know how these things work. No need to treat me like im stupid.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
The game is VERY different from the aspect you're trying to bring up. Yes its not an MMO but it's besides the point, and "paid access" to a character that you get just by playing the game anyways. It's not paying for an advantage.
 
It's not even close to "paying to access a class"
Nay say F2P all you want, but there's viable and fair ways to do it.
 
And don't try to "inform" me about things within MMOs, I've been doing this for 11 years, I know how these things work. No need to treat me like im stupid.
 
Go watch the video I posted earlier.
----
			
What part of "design a F2P where a player can't pay to get an advantage" are you all not getting?
Forget it, there's no winning when people don't pay attention.
And again someone pulls slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy.
-Throws in the towel-	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
What part of "design a F2P where a player can't pay to get an advantage" are you all not getting?
Forget it, there's no winning when people don't pay attention.
And again someone pulls slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy.
-Throws in the towel-
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
What part of "design a F2P where a player can't pay to get an advantage" are you all not getting?
Forget it, there's no winning when people don't pay attention.
And again someone pulls slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy.
-Throws in the towel-
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Yes, in most cases saying "If you do X, it leads to Y" it's a slippery slope logical fallacy. But in this case, this has been proven time and again in MMO's that add cash shops on top of subs (or transition to F2P), that it starts out with small, cosmetic, minor things and leads to bigger and bigger items and, in some cases, even game-changing things like stronger spells. That removes the fallacy part of it, and makes it more of a logical assumption.
 
You talk about this dream world where there's a F2P game that doesn't result in that, but the reality is, game companies are in this for the money, and they will chase that money, no matter how much it's players want a dream world where real life disposable incomes don't affect in-game contributions.
----
			
Everyone here is missing the point.
 
F2P ** CAN** be bad for players
 
F2P ** CAN ** also be good for players
 
 
The fact is, whether an F2P system is good or bad has nothing to do with the fact that it is F2P, but everything to do with the execution and focus of the system. 
 
just like certain game subscription schemes are bad for players, and some are good for players. 
 
the actual implementation MATTERS.
 
 
we can literally argue in circles till the cows come home, in the end it is possible to make Terrible F2P schemes, and great ones. Whether you personally are against F2P as a concept, or love it as a concept; it is your own prerogative, and while you are welcome to it, we really shouldn't be arguing over personal opinion in this context.
 
OT: 
 
It is unlikely that W* will go F2P anytime soon; but if and when it were to, why don't we consider hypothetical systems that would be better rather than worse? I love W*, and even if it did go F2P I would still be here playing it. That said, I'm sure the Devs would consider what type of F2P scheme to use if we gave them feedback on it.
 
My personal suggestion would (hypothetically) be: F2P to level 20; Sub to get full access. By that point we would have the low level trainer dungeons / raids in, and F2Players could enjoy some of the content and get hooked enough to sub. Any other thoughts?	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
My personal suggestion would (hypothetically) be: F2P to level 20; Sub to get full access. By that point we would have the low level trainer dungeons / raids in, and F2Players could enjoy some of the content and get hooked enough to sub. Any other thoughts?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
This is what I've been advocating (basically a permanent free trial), though to level 15.
----
			
Myself, alongside my very active raiding guild, would be gone the moment F2P hit the scene.
 
Carbine has been given the time, the backing and support of it's players, and the resources to make this game successful without the F2P model.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Myself, alongside my very active raiding guild, would be gone the moment F2P hit the scene.
 
Carbine has been given the time, the backing and support of it's players, and the resources to make this game successful without the F2P model.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
This is an example of trolling / flaming rather than constructive criticism.
 
Instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, maybe add a suggestion on how F2P could be done well IF it hypothetically had to? It's very unlikely that W* would go F2P anytime soon, but in the spirit of the thread, might as well contribute your ideas about a workable system no?
 
Or perhaps present some other features / mechanisms you think might be workable systems for the game from a monetization side of things.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
This is an example of trolling / flaming rather than constructive criticism.
 
Instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, maybe add a suggestion on how F2P could be done well IF it hypothetically had to? It's very unlikely that W* would go F2P anytime soon, but in the spirit of the thread, might as well contribute your ideas about a workable system no?
 
Or perhaps present some other features / mechanisms you think might be workable systems for the game from a monetization side of things.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Carbine has been given the time, the backing and support of it's players, and the resources to make this game successful without the F2P model.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
This is neither trolling or flaming it's merely stating an opinion and in a rather civil tone i might add.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Posts with little substance with primarily emotional / emotion riling content are what are known as 'troll' posts. 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
No, "troll" posts are made with the deliberate intent to incite negative emotions (usually frustration/anger, but it can be others) in people and are often characters by deliberately misleading people towards those ends. Emotional posts are not troll posts.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Posts with little substance with primarily emotional / emotion riling content are what are known as 'troll' posts. 
 
libel / harassment / aggressive verbage aren't needed to make a post 'trolling'
 
 
 
and the Devs have already answered with there being no current plans for changes to the monetization scheme... Either we keep the thread relevant, or it will get locked. If F2P is something no one wants to discuss seriously, then we can just let it fade / get a lock.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
"I will quit the game if this happens" is not a troll post, sorry. It's an effort to make clear to the developers what a player will and will not tolerate. He's not obliged to come up with a way to make F2P work, because he's already said that if the game goes F2P, he's gone.
 
And unless I've misunderstood both the title and the OP, what he's doing is far more consistent with the stated purpose of the thread than what you're doing.
----
			
If this happens, I am gone.
 
Can see no compromise on this - WildStar does not need more than subs and potential expansion sales to remain more than profitable. Tell NCSoft to shove it, if they're pressuring you, find another publisher.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
If this happens, I am gone.
 
Can see no compromise on this - WildStar does not need more than subs and potential expansion sales to remain more than profitable. Tell NCSoft to shove it, if they're pressuring you, find another publisher.
----
			
As the OP, allow me to clarify. This is simply a say NO to F2P. I personally do not want it and
 
{| class="blockquote"
"I will quit the game if this happens" is not a troll post, sorry. It's an effort to make clear to the developers what a player will and will not tolerate. He's not obliged to come up with a way to make F2P work, because he's already said that if the game goes F2P, he's gone.
 
And unless I've misunderstood both the title and the OP, what he's doing is far more consistent with the stated purpose of the thread than what you're doing.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
As the OP, allow me to clarify. This is simply a say NO to F2P. I personally do not want it and
 
 
As the OP, you understood 100% correctly. I feel if the Devs are listening then we should be given them a voice to hear regarding hot topics.
 
I did not see any other thread that was straight to the point but was definitely seeing a lot of concern regarding if this would be implemented. I'm happy to see such response to the topic, for better or for worse. I'll let the Devs decide in the end.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Devs already stated there were no plans to alter W*'s monetization scheme.
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Thanks for your poignant assessment Yas, always quick to elucidate the muddy waters of the forums for us lower life forms :)
 
Trolling proper might be a tad different than what some (clearly people like me) imagine it. But feel free to ameliorate the wrong-headed thinking of those like myself who clearly do not understand the internet and it's mysterious ways... We will surely thank you some day!
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Now.  When this post was made, that's certainly not what they were saying.  They were saying they were taking player feedback into account.
 
It was important to make sure the devs had the feedback they were listening for.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
What makes you think I didn't ?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Hmmm... (pulls out checklist)
 
Passive-aggressive. Check
Completely ignored the main point. Check.
I'm entitled to my opinion...
 
Tsk. You skipped one this time. I guess your post this time isn't quite as good of an example to illustrate clearly why I think you didn't as the last one was. Go back and reread it and then reread my response to it and see if you've got it then. I have every confidence you'll sort it out. You're a smart person.
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I'm not making up F2P schemes people will 'accept' I suggested a hypothetical F2P to level 20 system, that others agree would be a perfectly fine system. 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I did not see any other thread that was straight to the point but was definitely seeing a lot of concern regarding if this would be implemented. I'm happy to see such response to the topic, for better or for worse. I'll let the Devs decide in the end.
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I'm not making up F2P schemes people will 'accept' I suggested a hypothetical F2P to level 20 system, that others agree would be a perfectly fine system.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
lol no need to twist the context by highlighting just excerpts of what I said. It needs to be taken together.
 
I did not see any specific thread but many threads that tip toed around the subject or mentioned the possibility of going to F2P (despite what Devs have said and to be fair during a Nexus Report vague references were made without a clear answer. Apparently I missed what Pappy said) and a growing concern that the game will go F2P. This is reason enough to have a discussion. So this was started in order to create a specific reference regarding this issue. Considering the amount of feedback, I believe it was a success.
 
As for the Devs deciding, if you read the sentences previous to that statement, the proper context should make sense....if the Devs are listening then we should supply our voices. After that...then Devs will decide what they feel is the best direction for the game, either at our dismay or delight.
 
In saying that, I'm quite aware the issue may have been not writing a more clear and concise post on my part. Hopefully this should fix that up.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
 
As for the Devs deciding, if you read the sentences previous to that statement, the proper context should make sense....if the Devs are listening then we should supply our voices. After that...then Devs will decide what they feel is the best direction for the game, either at our dismay or delight.
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
What part of "design a F2P where a player can't pay to get an advantage" are you all not getting?
Forget it, there's no winning when people don't pay attention.
And again someone pulls slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy.
-Throws in the towel-
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
With all the better options, especially for us players out there, it's ridiculous F2P gets as much support as it does.  It's an absolutely tragic model to run a MMORPG on.
----
			
Hi all *burp*
 
Just adding in my comments on F2P.....
 
Firstly, a resounding "No".   Not only would I (eventually) leave. The game would die (imho) and here are a few of my humble reasons.....
 
I go back to spending around 10 years on Everquest - paid subscription, and loved every minute of that game....moved to WoW and same again - loved every minute, played Eve and now Wildstar - rinse and repeat - happy to sub, very happy to play....but why is this?
 
Compare this to some games now F2P (Everquest 1 can now be F2P so I went back to trial this for a month.....it lasted a month), tried F2P games downloaded through Steam - some of them good, some of them bad, but do I go back to the good ones? Very rarely...but why?
 
Well, two reasons why I "stay" on subscribed games (one reason no-one has actually listed yet)
 
1) We ARE paying for a sub....so that side of the psyche is keeping us in-game - we (as humans) don't want to waste the money we spend - this alone can keep people playing, even if they are not fully enjoying the game - if this went F2P then these players would leave eventually.
 
2) The "feeling" I get as a player in F2P games isn't good - I can walk away at any time, and as a casual player - I won't be spending cash on these games, so ultimately, I will not see the content and won't ever be as good as I can be.....
 
This is happening now right across the board of F2P games.....people just DO.NOT.STAY......plus there's too much saturation for these games now - you can just jump between games and your gaming life is just a mess.....
 
So, please stay as a sub, in the long-run it will be better economically for the company if you want to be in this game for the long-run - and carbine/Wildstar has the talent and the business model and the product to do so......
 
Regards,
 
Renko BeerGuzzler *burp*	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Everyone here is missing the point.
 
F2P ** CAN** be bad for players
 
F2P ** CAN ** also be good for players
 
 
The fact is, whether an F2P system is good or bad has nothing to do with the fact that it is F2P, but everything to do with the execution and focus of the system. 
 
just like certain game subscription schemes are bad for players, and some are good for players. 
 
the actual implementation MATTERS.
 
 
we can literally argue in circles till the cows come home, in the end it is possible to make Terrible F2P schemes, and great ones. Whether you personally are against F2P as a concept, or love it as a concept; it is your own prerogative, and while you are welcome to it, we really shouldn't be arguing over personal opinion in this context.
 
OT: 
 
It is unlikely that W* will go F2P anytime soon; but if and when it were to, why don't we consider hypothetical systems that would be better rather than worse? I love W*, and even if it did go F2P I would still be here playing it. That said, I'm sure the Devs would consider what type of F2P scheme to use if we gave them feedback on it.
 
My personal suggestion would (hypothetically) be: F2P to level 20; Sub to get full access. By that point we would have the low level trainer dungeons / raids in, and F2Players could enjoy some of the content and get hooked enough to sub. Any other thoughts?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
[2:18:02 PM] [removed]: well, #1 blame teh publishers that made people think that way, #2 a valid point is that you need a big playerbase to be able to pull it off, but #3 I've never seen a game that has vanity items that weren't bought XD
----
			
I wouldn't be too bent outta shape going F2P. I think it'd attract a lot more people to play which would stimulate the in-game economy.
 
Wakfu does this pretty well. The entire game is free, you can still buy credits for other things, mainly cosmetic.
 
TF2 does this exceedingly well. Yeah, it was pay to play but they've been the most successful f2p game I can think of. We're shelling out cash for digital HATS for god's sake!	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Except that as far as MMOs go, 98% of the ones on the market right now either paywall the shit out of you and spam your face until you cave and subscribe, or puts all of the best new stuff on the cash shop.
 
Savvy consumers say no to F2P every single bloody time.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
What is the problem with locking content behind a subscription and giving free players a taste? This is literally what drug dealers do to get more customers... if we believe W* is a great game (which it is) why would we be so worried about a F2P model where say, we give free players full reign till level 20 (with some limitations on social features perhaps); then those that like it can either sub or not progress....
 
 
I fail to see what is so fundamentally antithesis about a well implemented content block F2P model and having a quality game... The F2P portion will get more people interested who may not have been in the first place, and would bring in new players to sub.
 
 
 
SWTOR has ~1 million players, about half of which are subs.. In terms of revenue it's beaten only by WoW in the western market...  I don't think you are using the term 'dying' properly, and are perhaps putting indefensible faith in one mans claims which can be demonstrated to be false (SWTOR is not only sustainable, it's raking in 200+ million USD a year).
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
What is the problem with locking content behind a subscription and giving free players a taste? This is literally what drug dealers do to get more customers... if we believe W* is a great game (which it is) why would we be so worried about a F2P model where say, we give free players full reign till level 20 (with some limitations on social features perhaps); then those that like it can either sub or not progress....
 
 
I fail to see what is so fundamentally antithesis about a well implemented content block F2P model and having a quality game... The F2P portion will get more people interested who may not have been in the first place, and would bring in new players to sub.
 
 
 
SWTOR has ~1 million players, about half of which are subs.. In terms of revenue it's beaten only by WoW in the western market...  I don't think you are using the term 'dying' properly, and are perhaps putting indefensible faith in one mans claims which can be demonstrated to be false (SWTOR is not only sustainable, it's raking in 200+ million USD a year).
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
To be fair, what you're describing isn't F2P any more than WoW is F2P, it's a free trial.  There's nothing inherently wrong with it, except that the trial account people can annoy the tapdancing bejesus out of the actual members.  If anything, that's why Wildstar doesn't have a more robust trial system.  It has upsides and down sides.
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
to be really fair Vic, making a game FREE TO PLAY to level 20 is indeed a form of F2P, with a content lock on content above level 20; Just in the same way that making a game FREE TO PLAY to max level, but hiding non-story content behind a content lock is also F2P. Both systems allow people to play a game for free, while locking certain content behind subs / paywalls.
 
WoW's system is indeed a dual F2P / Sub system, just as SWTOR's is a dual F2P / Sub system. Yes I understand people are want to call them 'trials'; but it's just semantics at that point.
 
As for free players harassing subs; just limit F2P social features. It's been done before, and can be done well if the time is taken to work it properly.
 
7 day trials are old hat; make it a persistent F2P system and we'll bring in more folks. That said, discussing the merits between a more SWTOR type approach (full game access; lock non-story content behind sub) versus a WoW type approach (Full content access, with progression locked behind sub) is definitely a useful one to have.
 
 
 
Your deffinition of a trial would include SWTOR's F2P. I submit that whether we call a F2P scheme a trial or not is irrelevant to this discourse. Providing gameplay for free in temporal perpetuity is, (along with whatever  else you might want to call it) also a F2P scheme.
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
No, it's really not.  It's no more F2P than your free trial of Amazon Prime makes it a free service.  "Persistent F2P to 20" Is absolutely 100% not a F2P system except in only the most brutal and horrible way, which is to say, "It's free as long as you want no friends, limited access to everything, access to only one adventure, etc."
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
to be really fair Vic, making a game FREE TO PLAY to level 20 is indeed a form of F2P, with a content lock on content above level 20; Just in the same way that making a game FREE TO PLAY to max level, but hiding non-story content behind a content lock is also F2P. Both systems allow people to play a game for free, while locking certain content behind subs / paywalls.
 
WoW's system is indeed a dual F2P / Sub system, just as SWTOR's is a dual F2P / Sub system. Yes I understand people are want to call them 'trials'; but it's just semantics at that point.
 
As for free players harassing subs; just limit F2P social features. It's been done before, and can be done well if the time is taken to work it properly.
 
7 day trials are old hat; make it a persistent F2P system and we'll bring in more folks. That said, discussing the merits between a more SWTOR type approach (full game access; lock non-story content behind sub) versus a WoW type approach (Full content access, with progression locked behind sub) is definitely a useful one to have.
 
 
 
Your definition of a trial would include SWTOR's F2P (limited to level 50 + story content). I submit that whether we call a F2P scheme a trial or not is irrelevant to this discourse. Providing gameplay for free in temporal perpetuity (with no time limit) is, along with whatever  else you might want to call it, also a F2P scheme.
 
 
 
EDIT: to everyone who claims 'NO F2P' with out thought; it seems you each have a specific idea of what F2P is or necessarily means, which is not the same as the full range of what real F2P systems COULD be. Please consider the full spectrum of possible F2P systems and at the risk of sounding too cliche, think outside of the small F2P box you've made in your head.
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
The difference between SWToR's F2P and WoW's starter trial is that in SWToR you can play the entire game for free to level cap and even do the RoTH expansion you just have limited access to certain aspects of the game. WoW caps you at 20 and if you want to see more you need to pay the sub period end of story, there is no spend 10 bucks at the store and you can have this or that, so no it's not F2P and I would support that model.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
You can not play the entire game for Free in SWTOR. You are capped to level 50, and cannot run operations, PvP, or any content besides the story beyond a handful of times per week with out paying / subbing. ROTHC requires a sub / paywall payment, as does GSF.
 
Just because a F2P system doesn't ream you with microtransactions from their shop, doesn't stop it from being F2P.
 
Both WoW and SWTOR's systems allow some one to play their game in perpetuity with content limitations. In WoW you are limited to level 20, in SWTOR you are limited to level 50 if you are indeed not paying anything. SWTOR additionally does have a microtransaction system in place as well to unlock content walls temporarily if you want them but chose not to sub; WoW does not have that type of system in place. But at their core the systems are identical;
 
Provide perpetual access to the game world for free; limit the content free players can experience with out subbing/ paying.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Yes it is one is persistent (never ends) the other isn't. The defining factor of a 'trial' in most cases people use the term colloquially is a time limit. 
 
This is why 7 day trials are 'trials' while SWTOR's perpetual level 50 capped content locked access is F2P instead of a trial. This is also why in many cases WoW is listed as "Free to play until level 20 
 
I could take your claim and apply it directly to SWTOR's F2P service and it would fit perfectly; does that mean SWTOR is pay to play with a free trial?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Yeah...No. 
 
The devs don't get a say.  It's NCSoft's call.  If NCSoft says "FROG!" -- or "F2P!" -- the devs can quit, or they can start jumping.  And NCSoft will make the call based on the game's current and projected revenues, not on what the game's current players want.  
 
If the devs are lucky, NCSoft *might* ask them for advice since Carbine can be expected to know the code and have some ideas about will make for a smooth (ish) transition and what will be harder to do.  But if NCSoft is losing or has lost faith in Carbine, NCSoft won't ask, they'll just order, and that will be that.  If the devs complain, they'll be canned. They might get canned regardless if NCSoft decides they aren't the right people to do the transition work. 
 
I've said this a couple of times now, but it bears repeating:  Continuously screaming about how you'll quit if there's a business model transition won't stop it from happening. The revenue numbers are what matters. The only effect shouting here might have is convincing NCSoft the game should be shuttered rather than transitioned if they come to believe that its financial performance won't improve even with a transition.  If they read this stuff and come to believe that transitioning the game won't improve the profitability, they won't invest money in the transition. They'll just shut off the power. 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I would guess based on the typical relationship between publishers and developers that what you're saying is completely accurate, but I don't think it's all that relevant. The publisher and developer are a team that bears overall responsibility for the direction of all aspects of the game--both content (developers) and marketing (publishers). I highly doubt that the players here who have been so adamant about this topic care which part of the management team enacts the decision that causes them to leave, nor do I think it likely that they'll be more inclined to stick around if it's the publishers and not the developers that pull the trigger. 
 
They're simply letting the game's management know that if it happens, they'll leave--and if these forums aren't an effective means of getting that message to the part of the team responsible for evaluating the costs and benefits of revising the business model, then it's kind of a no-brainer that it's in the best interest of the game's management to provide one and direct topics like this to it.
 
All the customers can do is provide feedback--it's up to the marketing staff to pay attention to it or not and reap the consequences of that decision. But if the feedback isn't there, the marketing staff is flying blind--and the odds of getting it disastrously wrong by accident instead of by choice go way up.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
to be really fair Vic, making a game FREE TO PLAY to level 20 is indeed a form of F2P, with a content lock on content above level 20; Just in the same way that making a game FREE TO PLAY to max level, but hiding non-story content behind a content lock is also F2P. Both systems allow people to play a game for free, while locking certain content behind subs / paywalls.
 
WoW's system is indeed a dual F2P / Sub system, just as SWTOR's is a dual F2P / Sub system. Yes I understand people are want to call them 'trials'; but it's just semantics at that point.
 
As for free players harassing subs; just limit F2P social features. It's been done before, and can be done well if the time is taken to work it properly.
 
7 day trials are old hat; make it a persistent F2P system and we'll bring in more folks. That said, discussing the merits between a more SWTOR type approach (full game access; lock non-story content behind sub) versus a WoW type approach (Full content access, with progression locked behind sub) is definitely a useful one to have.
 
 
 
Your definition of a trial would include SWTOR's F2P (limited to level 50 + story content). I submit that whether we call a F2P scheme a trial or not is irrelevant to this discourse. Providing gameplay for free in temporal perpetuity (with no time limit) is, along with whatever  else you might want to call it, also a F2P scheme.
 
 
 
EDIT: to everyone who claims 'NO F2P' with out thought; it seems you each have a specific idea of what F2P is or necessarily means, which is not the same as the full range of what real F2P systems COULD be. Please consider the full spectrum of possible F2P systems and at the risk of sounding too cliche, think outside of the small F2P box you've made in your head.
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
If I recall correctly SWToR opened RoTH to the F2P market while I was playing and then refunded me half of the box cost for the expansion I paid full price for as a sub.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
This is false, while perhaps not huge or popular there are F2P MMO's with out cash shops
 
F2P and microtransactions are not mutually inclusive; See my discussion of 'trials' and 'F2P ' above
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
<snip> I do not recall that; but I've been subbed since launch so I could easily have missed it. Last I checked level 55 was still off-limits to F2P without paying for it... but like I said, I've been subbed the whole time, so I could have missed something in between <snip>
 
 
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 Just for clarification F2P can purchase RoTH for full value $19.99 and play to 55, they did this a month or so after it released, and I still had folks in my guild who said no I'm not giving EA a dime to play this game, all the while bitching about the fact that they were ham stringed by that decision.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
 
  if NCSoft just assumed everyone's going to be fine with the change, they'd be more likely to do it.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
That's what I thought it was. If you have to pay money, I don't consider it as a F2P feature. I'm happy to agree to disagree on counting paying for the expansion as F2P though, and I see your point if that's your claim.
 
 
 
Am I the only one who remembers the Phantasy Star franchise? 
 
And yes, there are free MMO's that don't have cash shops
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
I do not recall that; but I've been subbed since launch so I could easily have missed it. Last I checked level 55 was still off-limits to F2P without paying for it... but like I said, I've been subbed the whole time, so I could have missed something in between
 
 
I've never argued this point. I agree with you in full Vic.
 
 
 
I disagree somewhat; I think CREDD makes W* a little less cut and dry than a 'pure blue sub game'. But aside from that technicality yea, W* pretty much is.
 
 
Again, no argument from me. F2P is a scheme to attract more subs / payments in the vast majority of cases. 
 
 
 
I think it depends. Carbine has shown time and again they will listen to us whenever possible. I fear the strict 'NO F2P' crowd will mean that if for some reason W* were forced to adopt a F2P system in the far future there would be little input we could have (since all we are willing to tell them is NO).
 
But If we could actually discuss potential F2P systems that would focus on building subs and the player base (e.g. WoW) rather than focusing on micro-transactions (e.g. SWTOR) then we could perhaps influence what was behind that paywall to some degree for the better.
 
 
EDIT:
 
 
 
This is false, while perhaps not huge or popular there are F2P MMO's with out cash shops
 
F2P and microtransactions are not mutually inclusive; See my discussion of 'trials' and 'F2P ' above
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
How is it not? I play for free to 50 and if I want to play to 55 I throw 20 bucks at EA and get the next 5 levels unlocked and I still don't have to pay a sub. It's just another version of gating content.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
Am I the only one who remembers the original Phantasy Star franchise? 
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Well, I'm talking about this from a game design standpoint.  Technically, it can be said that a player does not have to personally pay after the box price.  But it's not "free to play", obviously, since essentially someone else is paying the sub monthly for them in a roundabout way, with a five dollar surchage.  More to the point, though, it's even more definitely not "F2P", oddly.  F2P, as a system, essentially revolves around implementing a layered approach that sets up grades of content by cash infusion, so that people can play a less dense game for free or they can pay a LOT more to get everything, plus something in between.  This sets up a system whereby developers only make money off certain game elements and content, meaning they have to make sure that they're making money by re-allocating resources.
 
CREDD doesn't do that.  Essentially, in terms of Carbine's view of us, both CREDD and subscribed players are the same.  Everyone's essentially been covered for the month, whether they paid or not.  Therefore, content does not need to be layered, now would they have any reason to.  CREDD can keep a lot of the benefits of F2P without any of that system's crippling problems, because to Carbine we're all players.  Plat, since it's very readily available, is all you can do (you can't buy yourself elder gems and it's not going to a shop).  Essentially, it sets up a system whereby you get the advantages of F2P and RMTs, but neither of those systems are in place and you don't deal with either of their drawbacks.
 
I don't think, in that case, we have anything to fear from saying we want no F2P.  I've brought up other, better alternatives, it seems like they aren't heading that way, it's not an imminent threat.  However, it's EXTREMELY important, I think, to make sure NCSoft and at least Carbine know that F2P isn't going to be a flat money increase.  They're going to at least have to factor in that money lost to their equation.  Coupled with CREDD already giving them a lot of the benefits of F2P in their sub model.
 
It's better than having them walk into it thinking, "Well, the subscribers will all stay and be our whales."
----