Most of these games are moving to free to play so why would OP even entertain going to a sub model.

CCP decided this model was right for them so whats with all the pity????

Also, even if the sub was $5 per month do you think that in a year this game will be worth that of other top flight games, worse two or three years???

And what about other similar titles that will soon be on newer consoles?

I always screw up altering the quotes so Ill just snip them

Bunny Must Die, Metroidvania with multiple characters with differing routes and playstyles
Spelunky, roguelike platformer and every game has a different layout
Cave Story, metroidvania with multiple endings
Mechwarrior Online, just go look it up
Net Hack, roguelike and I cant begin to tell you how massive and extensive it is
Dwarf Fortress, seriously go look it up and the crazy things you can do in this game

The others on the list are VNs, fairly short platformers, and fairly short horror games

Seriously man look into the freeware market, so many polished games made by teams that consist of one or a handful of people working on no budget with development times that match Dusts

$5.00?
SOE has paid well for an inferior product.
And you think $5.00 is going to be some major contribution?
That's cute, kiddo. Now take your little piggy bank back home and save for college.

Then CCP will have to retract all of its statements about how Dust is free to play during the past year of its development and then look like a company that has no clue what to even call their own game. On top of that, here are primary sources of income for CCP Games:

1. Eve Online Subscriptions (500,000+ and counting)
2. PLEX purchases (a huge ton of them thanks to New Eden economics)
3. AUR token purchases

Then there are the secondary sources of income:

1. Mercenary packs (lots of them).

The mere fact that CCP did away with the UVTs is a clear indication they are doing just fine money wise because the voice service is handled by a third party which cost money for the company. This is the same third party handling the Eve Voice service as well.

Then there is the fact that Dust will always be updated. You're right to assume that the game looks like crap right now, but that's what people said about Eve Online back in 2003.

If a game is pay to play i simply don't play it.
Pay once for my game, and if it needs an update, that should be free.

Extra content, yes I will pay for if it is a reasonable priced.

What a lot of people seem to have missed is that Dust514 brings together two games from different platforms.

Eve online and Dust514

If Dust514 only serves to introduce people to the Eve universe and then it's doing a damn good job.

Some of those people will be interested in Eve online, will try the free trial and a few like it enough to want to subscribe and keep playing.

Most console gamers only play for a few hours a day.
PC gamers on the other hand have games in some cases running 24/7

If Dust514 is to grow and evolve, it needs to be free to play with non pay to win extras, ie skins, clothing options ect.
If it became subscription based, the only people who would really want to play it enough to pay, in my opinion would be Eve online players seeking to influence the outcome of battles in Eve, with a few non Eve players who simply liked the game, which I might add is slightly reminisce of Battlefield 2142 just not as well made yet.

As Dust514 improves more people will be interested in buying some of the extra content.

Thanks for the hearty laugh OP.

I didn't like EVE, and this game wouldn't hold it worth right now if it had a sub like EVE, so yea I think it would fall apart if it did because I just don't see the needed content to stay coming out within 3months of a forced sub and by then all the players would be dust in the wind.

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.

Absolutely not. First, because I don't think the subscription model would work for an FPS, even one connected to an MMO. Secondly, games are moving away from the subscription model specifically because they can't make money that way. People are way more willing to drop like $5 here, another $2 there than $15 month after month after month. You might say "Yeah, but one person's $15 purchase is the same as three people's $5 one!" That's true, but with microtransactions, the people who were willing to pay $15 just to play at all are just as willing to pay $15 on boosters and Aurum and whatnot. Plus the people who say "Well, I just bought such and such game on PSN and I've got like $3 left on my account, I may as well get some Aurum or something with it" and the like.

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.

I find Dust to be a very lacking game at the moment, good enough to be tolerable for now but if monthly fees were added to it that would be the end of Dust for me. I wouldn't pay to play Dust in it's current state, I feel the balance and gameplay are too lacking right now and those are the top 2 aspects of FPS games for me.

They have promised quite a bit already. This is a content-added F2P model. The game itself should already be good enough so that you are driven to buy cosmetic customizations. It ain't.

The problem is that a sub model requires the game to be good. Sub based games on the console only work if the game itself is good enough to pay money for them. Just look at early DCUO and FFXIV. You don't just say "pay us and we can make this lackluster game good" when CCP has no record in the console or FPS world to back this up. Why would anyone sub for a game like this, and "trust" that CCP will make it better if you give them your money? No, you make a good game first, and then say "if you support us, we can make this game even better".

Personally, no.

It would be fine if they offered a subscription for those that want to pay. However, F2P is the way of the future. There are only 2 MMOs that are still subscription based. EVE Online (interestingly enough) and WoW. Who knows how it would work with a FPSMMO.

The business model (how this game makes money) is a separate issue from whether or not the game is any good. The F2P horse left the barn a long time ago and monthly subscriptions are a thing of the far distant past. Your vies of F2P are more relevant to the game market of 2008 than they are to the here and now.Trying to change the game so it fits an outdated business model won't make the it any better at this point. But we need all the players we can get an charging a subscription wouldn't really encourage the player base to grow by leaps and bounds.

Also Planetside 2 on PS 4 will be F2P and DUST 514 charging a subscription in that sort of gaming environment would look kind of silly... and sort of sad... really.

People won't even pay subscription fees for top of the line AAA MMOs these days, even EVE is in a minority clique in this day and age.

Heck I don't even think I'd pay a subscription for TF2 which is like, the best FPS ever made, let alone Dust.

For me to pay subscription for Dust it would need to be MMO+FPS Jesus fully linked into my EVE account with massive persistent battles and .... and ... well the rest. Basically it would have to be an FPS I would play over all others in the market ... +10

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.

Ok but I just can't grasp why everyone hates subscription so much. Just about everyone who poasted in my thread said: NNNNOOO!

A reasonable fee subscription is 5 bucks a month. that's 60 a year. How many titles a year do you or anyone in this thread buys per year? 3-4 is the average right? How long do you play any one of those games? 1-2 months tops. So why does subscription seem so terrible - if you don't like the game you just quit paying after the first month ( you wasted only 5 bucks); if you do - you keep rewarding the developer and they will keep cranking out good content for you.?

Blizzard has.

Sony, specifically that Star Wars Galaxies hating jerk Smedley, has constantly and recently said F2P was the way to go, that is why DCUO went F2P cause even Sony feels that is they model to go with. EA, Bioware, Cryptic, Turbine, they have all in the last 5 years went F2P, but Bioware, Cryptic, and Turbine are using hybrid models, a P2P and F2P system, with perks for P2P players. F2P is old in that it has been around for a while, but as mainstream, it is relatively new compared to sub models.

Other than Blizzard, I can't think of any big MMO companies that are P2P. The only reason Blizzard is P2P and not F2P or a hybrid model, is because it has 8 years or so as a P2P MMO and before companies started moving to F2P, Blizzard was already well into the market. What is bringing F2P to the forefront of gaming is that there are some quality F2P MMOs out there. Maybe none that you'd like, but SWToR, AAA title, Star Trek Online, AAA title, Champions Online, AAA Title, Neverwinter, AAA Title, the list goes on. Hell even Sony's DCUO and Everquest games are considered AAA titles, and have a large following.

I think there is enough of a following that 20% of the current Dust players would P2P, another 25-30% of the player base would opt for F2P and buy from the market. The rest would continue to play without spending a dime until CCP "fixed" the game. Also, of the 20% that would sub up, all 20% would continue to spend cash on the market for AUR to buy boosters. Already that is 45-50% of the player base supporting the game. Now that doesn't translate into millions, but every little bit helps, if you believe in the direction CCP wants to take Dust, then I see no reason why someone wouldn't sub up.

BTW, this is Smedley talking about F2P back in Dec. '12

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/12/14/soe-president-john-smedley-on-planetside-2s-future-free-to-play-and-everquest-next/

This is 100% false.

As World Of Tanks is a very high quality F2P game. Not to mention they've made huge successes, including two upcoming installments called World Of Warships, and World Of Warplanes.

On top of that, you have ARMA 2 FREE which gives you free access to ArmA 2 (Pay Version) with only a few setbacks such as degraded graphics (their version of degraded isn't much, it's still beautiful) and limited servers in which you can enter (You can only enter in about 50 of 200).

F2P games make loads of cash due to their premiums and markets, so you're paying for something regardless. Not only that, one loyal customer who purchases items from DUST 514's Aurum/Packs probably (assuming there would be a set price for the game, if it were to pay to play) theoretically purchases the game for not only himself/herself, but averagely two other people, who in reality probably don't put forth any money towards the Aurum/Packs.

It is true, however, that some F2P games aren't very successful such as Star Wars: The Old Republic, which blew tons of money, and ended up making less than the money put into the development of the game.

In conclusion, I think a huge reason DUST 514 went Free-to-Play exclusively on the PS3 was to get consumers more interested in not only DUST 514 and the EVE world, but in EVE Online itself, so CCP could gain even MORE money. I know for a fact I got super interested in the EVE Online PC game after playing DUST 514, and am currently playing the 14-day trial. Will I subscribe and pay the monthly fee? Possibly. To add onto this, this was a perfect tactical maneuver to get CCP more money because just about everyone in the world plays/played/has/had the PS3 and would evidently get the EVE Universe a better coverage of popularity.

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?