I agree but I think it's a circular argument. A f2p game will never offer enough quality to warrant subscription quality. But if CCP did make the effort / make investment to make subscription-worthy content, would you pay a fee to play it?

Yeah, thats exactly what I am saying: WoW type of content. CCP could make it happen because they have the universe already and a following to launch an MMO game with massive content. I don't really see a middle ground: their mictrotransaction micro-MMO is failing. I for one will not play this game much longer as it's just not fun to play - free or not.

But would you still quit it if they made it 'good enough'? That's exactly the core of my qustion. In order for this game to be good enough, it can not be f2p. f2p is just not a viable model for games that aim at being great. Hell, even at being good.

WoT would never have survied on consoles. Plus if you think about WoT it's browser quality. Is it fun to play? Sure because it's kinda unique and historically acurate. But it's not a console FPS that has to compete with other quality console FPS. It's a unique game with it's unique corner of the game market - that's what has gotten it as far as it has.

But would you still quit it if they made it 'good enough'? That's exactly the core of my qustion. In order for this game to be good enough, it can not be f2p. f2p is just not a viable model for games that aim at being great. Hell, even at being good.

Why? Also, $5/month is $60 per year. The only difference is that the developer has an incentive to keep adding content if a subscription is chosen.

Side note: I am surprised by your stance. I saw your recent posts you seem to be very disenchanged with how the game has turned out in its current state. I think it has a lot to do with f2p system that encourages scewed balance and poor effort on the part of the developer.

Which ones would you offer as an example?

Dunno about you, smart guy. I chose PS3 because I am used to PS platform for better or worse. Now your second point: this game wont be fixed unless there was more incentive for the devs. I would be willing to pay 5$ for prime content. And if CCP failed even after that - it woul be only 5$ extra that I would have wated after dumping 40$ in merc packs following their hollow promises. I just think that if there is a chance for Dust to be rescued it would be to take it out of the f2p hole. Right now I am sure no one buys AUR anymore. And if there is no cash flow CCP wont be working on the game.

That's definitely true. I am not suggesting switching over to subscription at this stage. I am just trying to get a fell for how ppl would feel if CCP offered, for example, optional transition to subscription 1 year from now and promised to create enough content in that one year that's actually worth a subscription fee.

What other similar titles?

Most of which games are moving to f2p system? All the big MMO put a foot through the door by offering limited content for free in expectation that a consumer would be drawn in and eventually switch to subscription. It's a marketing trick, not a business model.

I think that DUST needs to better at what it promised to be, not play catch up with other AAA titles, so yes if it was subscription based I do believe CCP would have invested more since it would stand to have more in profit under subscription model. If' it's gonna take half a year to fix the major bugs and add worthwhile content I'd be fine with it. I would wait that long, and would be willing to pay subscription for this content.

I don't pity CCP. I pity DUST because no one is gonna play it in 3 months because nothing will get fixed. And yes I used to be excited about DUST. I am prettys sure ppl will keep dropping off and those who stay wont be paying for aurum. So CCP would let the game die instead of putting more development effort to fix it.

I don't quite agree with you. I think there has been much more hype around F2P model as being the way of the future than any of it being based in reality. The biggest money makers in the industry are and imo will always be P2P games. The only problem with P2P games is that they are not meant to be played for over than a year or so - the developers have much higher incentive to release a game and then it's sequel shortly after to continue making money of the title. Unfortunately an MMO cant survive with a payment model like this for obvious reasons.

I read his interview on the link you provided. I think there are two 'buts' in it. First he is speaking from the position of a developer/publisher behind a large f2p project, so he has to defend this model. Second, iirc planetside 2 did not start out as f2p, they converted to f2p only after it was obvious that it would have enough players to support a profitable f2p. I think this difference is key as developer invested into planteside a ton of money from the get go - I think the may not have done it if they started out with the f2p concept in mind - it's just too risky. So I think planetside is more of an exception than the rule. You also see in the interview how he defends p2p: he says that really big games with a lot of effort going into their creation (he offers COD as an example) are obligated to be p2p - otherwise, they would not make money.

Right, exactly. We should pay them. But with the current system we are not paying enough. It's like your maid: he/she can't be expected go to ten homes for free just in hope of one of the homeowners paying for the extra premium clean, which, by the way, under f2p but not pay to win formula would have to be no better than the non-premium service delievered for free to the other 9 homeowners.

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?