115520-say-no-to-f2p-page-5

Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6, Page 7
== Content ==
			
{| class="blockquote"
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.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Turn that around and what you're saying is "If NCSoft knows players don't want to change to F2P, that will encourage them to keep the game sub only!" I'm telling you that's not true.  Envision this as a flow chart.  In box 1 it says  "Is the game sufficiently profitable?" There are two branches: "Yes", and "No." If "Yes", then "Do Nothing."  If "No," there are two branches: One says "Transition business model", and the other says "Close down game."  There isn't a branch saying, "keep underperforming game running on the same model because otherwise currently players will be upset if we switch and we don't want to upset them." 
 
It's like you're arguing that this decision would be made off the "Yes" branch, as in, "The game is making enough money, but it would make MORE if we switched to F2P, so let's do that!", and you think you can convince them that this will actually cause them to lose money, so it would be a bad move.  But games that start out sub only switch to F2P models after the sub model is already a failure, where failure means "We're not happy with the profits this game is making."  If a game is succeeding on the sub model, it stays on the sub model, because a sub model represents a predictable revenue stream the company can point to as evidence of future financial stability.  
 
If you run a store selling only vanilla ice cream, and you're not making enough money to pay the electric bill, it doesn't matter if your current customer base will leave if you start selling chocolate -- you're not surviving off them anyway.  You have to diversity your flavor offerings even if the vanilla purists will scream and stop buying your product, because those bills need to get paid. That's all there is to it.  If you're not successful doing thing A, you have to stop doing thing A and either switch to thing B or C, or just go out of business.  
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
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.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Turn that around and what you're saying is "If NCSoft knows players don't want to change to F2P, that will encourage them to keep the game sub only!" I'm telling you that's not true.  Envision this as a flow chart.  In box 1 it says  "Is the game sufficiently profitable?" There are two branches: "Yes", and "No." If "Yes", then "Do Nothing."  If "No," there are two branches: One says "Transition business model", and the other says "Close down game."  There isn't a branch saying, "Keep underperforming game running on the same model because otherwise currently players will be upset if we switch and we don't want to upset them." 
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
 
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.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
 
"Go F2P" or "Shut down game" is a false dichotomy.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
This guy pretty much has it spot on.  Thanks Vic for being far more patient than myself and taking the time to explain this.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
The actual dichotomy is "Change business model" or "Shut down game."  Whether or not that "change" would be F2P, B2P, or whatever would be up to NCSoft's financial analysts to decide. 
If this is a false dichotomy, what's your third branch? Aside from "NCSoft continues to operate an insufficiently profitable game," which, given that this is NCSoft, is really not going to happen?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
 
If that's not cutting it for some reason, I've already enumerated several better options.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Nope, sorry, I disagree with this completely. CREDD-based P2W made the PvP in this game a shambles. You can't buy elder gems. But you can buy a carry through content that will harvest them for you at a rate much faster than the other subscribers in the game who don't buy CREDD and can't afford carries.
----
			
I'm neutral on the subject of F2P.  I've played several games where communities survived (and even thrived) after F2P transitions, but I've also played several games where the opposite was true.  I find that a lot depends on the implementation and the marketing.
 
However, I also am sensitive to the fact that a large number of players who I really enjoy playing the game with are very nervous about the potential for an F2P offering, with very good reasons.
 
So based on that I would prefer that Wildstar remain subscription-only.  Because let's face it - fun gameplay and challenging content only takes us so far.  In the end, what keeps us playing once the shiny wears off is the other players that we make connections with.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I'm neutral on the subject of F2P.  I've played several games where communities survived (and even thrived) after F2P transitions, but I've also played several games where the opposite was true.  I find that a lot depends on the implementation and the marketing.
 
However, I also am sensitive to the fact that a large number of players who I really enjoy playing the game with are very nervous about the potential for an F2P offering, with very good reasons.
 
So based on that I would prefer that Wildstar remain subscription-only.  Because let's face it - fun gameplay and challenging content only takes us so far.  In the end, what keeps us playing once the shiny wears off is the other players that we make connections with.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
If there actually is a better option out there, NCSoft will take it. They want money, remember.  If they think a more profitable option exists, they will use it.  You can bet that their trained financial analysts are going over the numbers and the projected numbers in detail, because that's their job.  
 
 
"Bad for players" isn't the driving issue here.  This isn't a charity or a public service. It's not being run for the good of the players, it's being run to make money.
 
And you don't have to accept anything. You can keep playing the game under a new model or not. You're free. And so is NCSoft. 
 
 
Players who are aware of NCSoft's history as a company are aware that Wildstar could very well just go away completely if it's not bringing in the bucks. They'd rather play under a different business model than not play at all, and they want NCSoft to know that.  Just as you have the right to tell NCSoft you won't play if they convert, they have the right to tell NCSoft that they will play a conversion, if the alternative is not playing at all. 
 
 
Vic...I think it's safe to say you aren't going to come up with a working business model for MMOs that hasn't been considered and rejected by people whose job is actually to analyze these things.  
----
			
Yafan says: 
 
{| class="blockquote"
 
 
ou seem to be arguing from the perspective that they're rejecting any change to the model, and it seems to me that they're rejecting only that subset of changes that involve F2P.
----
			
I came to the forum today specifically to attack this thread, unsure how to approach it because it'll likely *cupcake* a lot of people off.. But I have to say it because I just had a major let down because of it so I'll just say exactly what I'm thinking.
My cousin came to skim the forum found this debate and skimmed through it and then decided not to buy the game until June or July, he said because "I seen long discussions like this in the SWTOR forum before it went F2P after a year of it's release"... So here's what I'm thinking.
WTF! 25 pages of speculation before even experiencing Drop 3.. Just chill and put it to rest, you think you're helping but its doing more harm then good! The subject alone is a deterrent to those opposed and fuel for those not, you don't have the facts and numbers that Carbine does so stop grand standing stop speculating and just let the game marinate and go from there!  	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Yafan says: 
 
 
And NepheleVG says:
 
 
Yasfan, this is what I mean.  The dichotomy being discussed here is "WIldstar stays sub only" or "Wildstar becomes open to non-sub players through some mechanism."  To most players, any change from box-and-sub is a change to "F2P" and will ruin the game because it will bring in players who aren't as devoted and will ruin the community. 
 
If you and Vic want to argue over the murky middle ground between full-sub and non-sub, it's not actually me you have to convince -- it's the folks who think any deviation from full-box-and-sub constitutes F2P, because that's what they're saying -- "Keep it box and sub!"  Not that NepheleVG is one of these, but I wanted to use that example to show that while there is a false dichotomy operating here, it's not on my end.  It's on the end of folks who think any change from box-and-sub is equivalent to "F2P" (however they define that) and that are opposing any change at all to Wildstar's business model on the grounds of "That's F2P and will ruin the game!"
 
You could try restarting the thread with a title along the lines of "What business models do we players think NCSoft should, and should not, consider if revenue issues force a change away from full box-and-sub for Wildstar?" but that's way long and not nearly as catchy as "SAY NO TO F2P" so I doubt it will go anywhere (and besides it would just be locked and redirected here...) 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I came to the forum today specifically to attack this thread, unsure how to approach it because it'll likely *cupcake* a lot of people off.. But I have to say it because I just had a major let down because of it so I'll just say exactly what I'm thinking.
My cousin came to skim the forum found this debate and skimmed through it and then decided not to buy the game until June or July, he said because "I seen long discussions like this in the SWTOR forum before it went F2P after a year of it's release"... So here's what I'm thinking.
WTF! 25 pages of speculation before even experiencing Drop 3.. Just chill and put it to rest, you think you're helping but its doing more harm then good! The subject alone is a deterrent to those opposed and fuel for those not, you don't have the facts and numbers that Carbine does so stop grand standing stop speculating and just let the game marinate and go from there!  
----
			
As a counterpoint here, I want to offer a personal anecdote.  I have a very good friend who is an incredible roleplayer, and is part of my weekly tabletop gaming group.  She has a full-time job and is a busy adult like the rest of us.
 
She only plays MMOs with free-to-play/cash shop models.
 
She does this because the subscription model makes her feel that she is required to spend some minimum amount of time in the game in order to "get her money's worth", and that ends up killing games for her.  She likes being able to drop out for a week or two if life gets busy, without feeling like she's throwing money away.
 
This doesn't necessarily change my opinion as stated above, but I think it's also valid and worth thinking about when we discuss business models.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I came to the forum today specifically to attack this thread, unsure how to approach it because it'll likely *cupcake* a lot of people off.. But I have to say it because I just had a major let down because of it so I'll just say exactly what I'm thinking.
My cousin came to skim the forum found this debate and skimmed through it and then decided not to buy the game until June or July, he said because "I seen long discussions like this in the SWTOR forum before it went F2P after a year of it's release"... So here's what I'm thinking.
WTF! 25 pages of speculation before even experiencing Drop 3.. Just chill and put it to rest, you think you're helping but its doing more harm then good! The subject alone is a deterrent to those opposed and fuel for those not, you don't have the facts and numbers that Carbine does so stop grand standing stop speculating and just let the game marinate and go from there!  
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Well, before this he would have been turned away having seen us talking about the game's population, which is where this came from.
 
Forums aren't usually a place to go to get positive feedback.
 
And, honestly, I get where he's coming from.  I'm going month-to-month strictly because F2P isn't off the table.  I'd have bought in annually if it was, but it's not.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I'm not sure how this works.  What you're saying is that CREDD is pay to win because someone can buy CREDD, trade it for money so that person can play, and then can use the plat to buy content runs that will earn them Elder Gems?
 
There are a few issues I have with that argument, not the least of which being that you could do that with plat anyway by just farming in a circle.  Unless you're trying to say that the P2W is based exclusively on the idea that you don't have to farm your own game currency if you're willing to pay for someone else's month.  I mean, if that's what you believe, I suppose that's fine, but I've never run into anyone anywhere and thought, "Man, if I had just a little bit more money, I'd be unstoppable against this guy."  If you could use that money to buy 1800 arena gear or Datascape raid gear, I'd buy that argument, but you can't and I don't.  At best, you can buy pre-raid gear after you get to 50 (and you won't even be able to do that anymore, soon) and some decent-ish starting PVP gear.  Your gear will never put you on the leaderboard, though.
 
Most people I know that buy and sell CREDD for plat aren't using it for gear, they're using it for decor.  The only people I've heard of buying gear are buying into GA after they attune, but those don't tend to be people who sell CREDD for it (those are usually hardcore players that have plat to spare).  I just don't see what you're getting at.  Plat's not that valuable in the game; plenty of people have bought CREDD for over a year because it was so cheap for a while.  I generate platinum just by doing dailies, and intermittently at that, because I just don't have anything to spend it on besides my plot.  Eventually, you have to do the content to get any kind of gear progression.
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
 
It's creating expectations of F2P not weighing the possibility.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Yasfan, this is what I mean.  The dichotomy being discussed here is "WIldstar stays sub only" or "Wildstar becomes open to non-sub players through some mechanism."  To most players, any change from box-and-sub is a change to "F2P" and will ruin the game because it will bring in players who aren't as devoted and will ruin the community. 
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
This gives me an idea though: Let's take the "subs are evil and anti-player" folks and the "F2P is evil and anti-player" folks, give them all whiffle bats, and turn them lose in a stadium to have at each other.  We could sell tickets and make a fortune!
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Uh, maybe you didn't follow what the phrase "boosters and carriers" means. Since you seem unfamiliar with them and how they work, the general process goes something like this.
Player X buys CREDD with real money.
Player X sells CREDD to obtain plat.
Player X offers plat to other player(s) with vastly superior gear and organization in return for being in the team/raid group that completes objective Y, which is the only in-game means to obtain Rare And Powerful Artifact Z which you claim cannot be bought with plat and therefore cannot be bought with CREDD. 
Other player(s) with vastly superior gear and organization carry Player X through to obtain the item, thereby disproving your statement that said item is unattainable with plat and therefore unattainable with CREDD.
Other player(s) take the plat and do something* with it.
Player X is now able to outcompete other players with Rare And Powerful Artifact Z, which he obtained from his CREDD in spite of your proclamations that it wasn't possible for him to do that.
*thing in question may or may not involve taking the plat to a goldtrader site to convert it back into real cash--but since it would be in poor taste for me to even suggest such a thing ever happens in a game as carefully moderated and exploit-free as this one is, let's all just pretend that it definitely isn't. 
See how that works? The fact that your friends don't do it is great, I'm happy for them. The fact that you don't seem to even be familiar with the idea is great, I'm happy that it hasn't impacted any elements of the parts of the game that you enjoy. But it has undeniably had a major impact on the PvP in this game, and it undeniably has been used to skip past overly difficult attunement requirements. That's not conjecture, there have been people who have been nervy enough to advertise their carrying services right here on these forums.
 
And since you mentioned that I could get plat in the game by grinding it out instead of by buying CREDD, you're right.  I could grind my way to get the same plat for a month to reach the same plat that some rich kid with a credit card can reach in 5 seconds with a "buy it now" button. Where I'm puzzled is why you think that "time vs. money" tradeoff isn't exactly the same tradeoff at the core of most F2P marketing. Play the game? Sure. Want to be anything more than someone else's punching bag? Well now, THAT will cost you.
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Well, in fairness, even "Wildstar stays sub only" is not the same as "the business model must not change". There's a lot more flexibility even within subscription-gated models. To take a few obvious examples, the monthly subscription fee for MMORPGs has stayed at $15/month for... what, 10 years now? Most other things have undergone some level of inflation. Maybe it's time to have a serious discussion about whether a MMORPG is still worth paying for if the cost is $0.67/day rather than $0.50/day. 
 
Another case-in-point--this game isn't sub only. CREDD is basically a "plat now please" button for people who buy it on top of their sub fee. Many of the people here view sub+CREDD as a minor variant on a subscription model, rather than a wholesale departure from it. I disagree with them strongly on that point, but it's not F2P and not a subscription and they seem entirely fine with it.
 
Maybe lowering the box price would increase profits by bringing in more subs. If the subs can be retained for even a few months, a boost in subscriptions could more than outweigh the loss from the box sales.
 
All of these are things that come to mind as changes to the business model that don't involve going F2P and even preserve the more restrictive limitation of keeping a sub model. You're presenting F2P as the only alternative to the way things are, and it simply isn't.
----
			
Seeing a modest influx of new and returning players, and a small amount of 'buzz' in the game with the launch of Megaservers, I am more convinced that a change in business model would be great for the game.
 
My suggestion would be:
$20 box price for levels 0-50 and all content up to the current drop
$20 (ie: 1 CREDD) to unlock the current content drop
When a new content drop is released, that becomes the current unlockable content. Everything else becomes included in the $20 box price for new players.
 
This is very similar to the $15/month for new content each month we signed up for originally, but the customers pay for the content when it is released rather than pre-paying $15 a month on the promise of drops 'when they are ready'. I think this would greatly reduce the hostility and impatience of players with drops. It would incentivize the developers to release content so they can get payments in return. Basically it would empower the current customers and lower the barrier for new players to enter.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Seeing a modest influx of new and returning players, and a small amount of 'buzz' in the game with the launch of Megaservers, I am more convinced that a change in business model would be great for the game.
 
My suggestion would be:
$20 box price for levels 0-50 and all content up to the current drop
$20 (ie: 1 CREDD) to unlock the current content drop
When a new content drop is released, that becomes the current unlockable content. Everything else becomes included in the $20 box price for new players.
 
This is very similar to the $15/month for new content each month we signed up for originally, but the customers pay for the content when it is released rather than pre-paying $15 a month on the promise of drops 'when they are ready'. I think this would greatly reduce the hostility and impatience of players with drops. It would incentive the developers to release content so they can get payments in return. Basically it would empower the current customers and lower the barrier for new players to enter.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Well, in fairness, even "Wildstar stays sub only" is not the same as "the business model must not change". There's a lot more flexibility even within subscription-gated models. To take a few obvious examples, the monthly subscription fee for MMORPGs has stayed at $15/month for... what, 10 years now? Most other things have undergone some level of inflation. Maybe it's time to have a serious discussion about whether a MMORPG is still worth paying for if the cost is $0.67/day rather than $0.50/day. 
 
Another case-in-point--this game isn't sub only. CREDD is basically a "plat now please" button for people who buy it on top of their sub fee. Many of the people here view sub+CREDD as a minor variant on a subscription model, rather than a wholesale departure from it. I disagree with them strongly on that point, but it's not F2P and not a subscription and they seem entirely fine with it.
 
Maybe lowering the box price would increase profits by bringing in more subs. If the subs can be retained for even a few months, a boost in subscriptions could more than outweigh the loss from the box sales.
 
All of these are things that come to mind as changes to the business model that don't involve going F2P and even preserve the more restrictive limitation of keeping a sub model. You're presenting F2P as the only alternative to the way things are, and it simply isn't.
----
			So many words... I lost track 3 pages ago. But NO to traditional F2P models, yes to a limited free trial.	
----
			what mae said	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 For example, Boosting" doesn't just exist in P2W games, it's in every single game ever.  It's in WoW, EVE, FFXIV.  Joining a guild is, essentially, finding people better than you that are willing to drag you through content over and over until you learn it, in exchange for some service you provide.  With plat, you're just talking about that being traded for game currency.  This isn't exactly new or especially corrupt, it's just not looked down well on when you're doing it for game money (back in the day, it was called powerleveling, and whether you paid real money wasn't at issue, it was simply assumed you didn't know what you were doing).  That's the end result you're trying to avoid, and that's not coming from CREDD.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Central point:  A conversion to any kind of F2P (or B2P, or hybrid, or installing a cash shop on top of subs, or whatever might be tried) will only happen if it needs to happen to keep the game up and running  -- if the subs aren't cutting it.  And if it needs to happen, screaming about it isn't going to change that simple fact.  But there is a chance, however small, that trying to draw lines in the sand for NCSoft to cross will tilt the balance toward a shutdown instead of a conversion.  
----
			This thread has reached maximum derpitude. There are good ways to provide feedback and bad ways to do so. This has turned into the latter. Only one course of action is left	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Yeahhhhh... I dunno.  Not all business decisions are made based on need. Some are based on miscalculations. Some are based on greed. Some are based on priorities that have nothing to do with immediate profit margins and more to do with positioning for future moves.
 
I think there's a tendency here to give gaming companies and publishers waaaaay too much credit in how deeply they consider a decision before they implement it. Research is hard and expensive and takes thought to interpret--in contrast, opinions and gut feelings are easy and quick and cheap. I've seen way too many decisions that should have been informed by facts end up informed by opinions because the facts don't happen to be sitting in the room when the decision is made.
 
While I agree that there's potential for harm in giving feedback to a company, I'd argue that the potential for harm in not giving feedback is almost certainly much larger.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Surely, 60 dollars at the gate is a more sizeable barrier to entry than 15 dollars a month.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
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"
Turn that around and what you're saying is "If NCSoft knows players don't want to change to F2P, that will encourage them to keep the game sub only!" I'm telling you that's not true.  Envision this as a flow chart.  In box 1 it says  "Is the game sufficiently profitable?" There are two branches: "Yes", and "No." If "Yes", then "Do Nothing."  If "No," there are two branches: One says "Transition business model", and the other says "Close down game."  There isn't a branch saying, "Keep underperforming game running on the same model because otherwise currently players will be upset if we switch and we don't want to upset them." 
 
It's like you're arguing that this decision would be made off the "Yes" branch, as in, "The game is making enough money, but it would make MORE if we switched to F2P, so let's do that!", and you think you can convince them that this will actually cause them to lose money, so it would be a bad move.  But games that start out sub only switch to F2P models after the sub model is already a failure, where failure means "We're not happy with the profits this game is making."  If a game is succeeding on the sub model, it stays on the sub model, because a sub model represents a predictable revenue stream the company can point to as evidence of future financial stability.  
 
If you run a store selling only vanilla ice cream, and you're not making enough money to pay the electric bill, it doesn't matter if your current customer base will leave if you start selling chocolate -- you're not surviving off them anyway.  You have to diversity your flavor offerings even if the vanilla purists will scream and stop buying your product, because those bills need to get paid. That's all there is to it.  If you're not successful doing thing A, you have to stop doing thing A and either switch to thing B or C, or just go out of business.  
----
			
@ the OP
 
 
the Dev's may be listening as you say, but it wont matter because on an issue like this it comes down to dollars and cents and NCSoft is going to do what makes the most amount of money vs. not losing the soul of the game.  I prefer the game sub based as well, but I am sure that you all know there are many f2p games that are successful and still fun to play.  A good example is Rift- was sub based for a year or so and transitioned into f2p.  Rift even managed to keep it where you don't 'pay to win'.  
 
When Rift went F2P the game grew significantly having to almost double the number of servers that they run on just to keep up with the influx.  The game is still running today profitably and in my opinion is a better game that WOW.  Downside- with f2p it brings in kids, annoying types and those that like to sit around the barrens and make Chuck Norris remarks (like in wow.  There are no barrens in Rift- just an example)	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I bolded the line I'm especially talking about here, because I like it.  I still don't get why, if more players are what we're aiming at, the sub is the target instead of the box price.  Every conversation seems to go straight to F2P instead of, "why not just kill the box price and just charge the first month's subscription?"
 
Surely, 60 dollars at the gate is a more sizeable barrier to entry than 15 dollars a month.
----
			
I don't undestand where this question about going F2P is coming from. 
 
Wildstar has the CREDD system. We do not need to go F2P, and I really don't believe it will benefit the game in anyway.
 
But what we can do to make it even better, is making CREDD usable for every paid service. ( Server transfer, name change ++ )
This way CREDD will increase in value, and ppl can play this game even if there poor kids with no money.	
----
			I'm so tired of F2P games and the amount of money they try to squeeze out of you. I hope WildStar stays as a sub... Foreverrrr :D £8.99 a month is better than £102390293420 a month.	
----
			
GW2 model.
 
buy the box, play.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here. Businesses are run by human beings not Vulcans so they sometimes make emotional and irrational decisions? Sure. But the decision being talked about here -- whether to continue an MMO under a sub model or to change it up -- is not a nuanced or difficult call.  I suppose if the game is teetering right on the very edge of acceptable revenues, emotions might come into play -- how much does NCSoft like the game? How much do they like the guys and gals at Carbine? How much slack do they feel like giving them?  But if the game is seriously in the hole in terms of expected revenue,  I don't think even affection for the IP and/or the devs is going to stay NCSoft's hand.  They have not, in the past, been swayed by appeals to sentimentality when it comes to business decisions about their MMOs.  There's a first time for everything, of course, but I wouldn't wager a single dollar on the likelihood of it happening here. 
 
If the idea of this thread  is "If we shout and scream loud enough about F2P (however we define that), we can sway NCSoft's decision on the matter!" -- which is what the OP suggested, although he/she seemed to think that Carbine gets a say in it, which they don't unless NCSoft is feeling generous -- I find that not to be a credible idea at all.  You've got a couple or three dozen people here yelling about dropping sub if the game changes its current model -- well, I could pretty easily show you probably double that of people in other forums going "Waiting for it to go F2P before trying it," "Looks interesting but not gonna pay a sub, no way," and so on. If NCSoft is paying attention to the buzz (and anti-buzz) on this game, they can't help but see that as well.  If they are being swayed by what's here, they're also being swayed by what's out there.  
 
I approve of the idea of giving feedback to a company as a general rule, but giving feedback on a topic that has zero wiggle room (like whether or not to continue a failing business model) is just setting yourself up for disappointment. Since I can't see any potential for a positive outcome here -- defined as "We yell and that keeps the game on a box-and-sub model forever, yay!"  -- I think the best outcome you're going to get is a neutral one (no effect) and the worst is a negative one (shutdown instead of transition.)  
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I don't think you read the article.
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I think I read it just fine:
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
-snip-
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
But you can't conclude from that that all changes that are actually enacted by a company are life-and-death, "if we don't do this we can't pay our bills" changes. 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I directly linked to one of EA's 2013 Quarterly reports Post F2P switch. 
 
As of the Cantina Tour  It was revealed that SWTOR has around 10 million casual players, 1 million active players every month, and half a million active subscriptions.
 
The more recent information for SWTOR comes from primarily the EA Quarterlies as well as the EA conference calls and Investor information,   and data aggregation services.
 
 
Here is a recent source for SWTOR's subs being ~500k as well as the numbers I listed previously
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
None of this has anything to do with the point of the article I linked to.
----