I hope that this thread takes off because as more ppl comment on the issue we may be able to shed some light on the multiple controversial aspects of Dust. I know some ppl play this game only because it's f2p and they feel empowered and liberated by not having to spend their money if they don't have to. Others are in the opposite camp (me included): we don't want to play a poorly made game just because it's free (if a game is a chore to play, I don't want it). Here is where I am coming from:

All f2p games that I know of have been cheaply made and are buggy as hell. They are usually made by small developers who can't compete with bigger companies. Here are some common signs of f2p:

- usually PC games: there is a lot of theft and piracy in the PC world, so there is more incentive for develops to start out with f2p model rather than an expensive game that will be downloaded illegaly anyway.

- lowered expectations: the game is of an inferior quality. Usually with a justification: what did you expect if it's f2p?

- may have a following: some gamers think it's more honest when smaller developers get a piece of the market even if their product is inferior

- Typically rotates around a core problem: at some level it must be p2w for the developer to make a living. If all weapons/features are exactly the same and there is no incentive to spend money, you can't get far on donations only. Some developers have a way around it - a f2p game that's balanced but extra content (like more maps) is available only to paying customers (however, this model has a lot more to do with subscription rather than f2p model).

- f2p economy is distorted, hurting the game. developers have an incentive to skew the game in the direction where balance favors features available through microtransactions. The majority of f2p games at least at some level are GIMMICKS: it's like a casino you get an advantage for money that you have to keep coming back to by spending more money. here is an example: in Dust proto gear is vastly superior to lower tiers but ultimately not supposed to be sustainable for the majority of players through ISK (if you an AVERAGE player: you lose 1 suit per 1 suit you kill and rewads at the end of the game are too small to keep net neutral balance of ISK). Hence there is significant pressure to either spend real money to keep up or do something that breaks the game: redline sniping or MCC AFKing.

Now here is something that I have been thinking about for a long time. Dust should be subscription based. If CCP spent more money hiring professional personnel with experience in FPS, we would all end up with a much better game. I think this would only happen if CCP knew they would make their money back (duh!). F2P is too unreliable a model to guarantee this (see all the reasons above). Most ppl who play this game want it because of the promise of a greater future and are turned off by the lame present. That greater brighter future is possible only if the developer is wiling to spend more money on development. All in all it makes sense to petition for a subscription fee based game model. Those of us who want the bare bones should be allowed to stay in the f2p mode; but there is gotta be a greater, better developed game available for ppl who want an console FPS game quality we have come to expect. I am willing to pay subscription for the latter. Your thoughts?