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.

Not on you, but you kind of missed the point. Smedley has been President of SOE for years, almost 10 for sure (He was around when SWG was released 10 years ago this month). Until the last two years or so he never mentioned F2P. Neverwinter is a new release (more or less, it's still OB I think) and it was built by a F2P developer (Cryptic Studios). The difference between major studios supporting F2P and CCP supporting F2P is that these studios have BIG backers. In the case of Neverwinter, Cryptic has PWE to back them. CCP and Sony have no idea how to really market F2P games, Asian companies do, they have been for years, you'll note in that interview that the number one game in the world, based off of subscriber numbers is a F2P game (League of Legends), that is what everyone late to the game is trying to get into, including CCP. The problem with Subscription based games on a console is that players don't want to have to spend money to sub for a game on a console. Microsoft and Xbox Live are the reason that players are not interested in this. Who wants to spend $60 a year for access to a $15/month subscription? Sure Sony isn't doing what MS is doing, but they get a cut from every dollar spent on PSN. People will pay $15 to sub to a console MMO, but once the middle man get's his share, what does that leave for the developer? Therefore, for the developer to get there $15, they have to charge a higher subscription price and players aren't going to pay $20 a month in a F2P market where they have options. That being said, I would still spend the $20 sub if CCP had a hybrid model. While I'm not happy with Dust at this time, I still play from time to time and I believe that CCP can deliver on the future, but I seriously think that they need income to do it.

People are complaining that Dust isn't great and they won't pay. They want a AAA MMO title for free. Most people don't realize that games, any type of AAA game, cost millions to make before it is even worthy of being a beta, much less release worthy. That money has to come from some place. Dust is my game, it's not CCPs, they work for me to provide me with something. So why shouldn't I pay them? If I hire a maid, that maid provides a service or function and gets paid for it. That is how I look at it.

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.?

Let me ask you a questions. Do you play mostly console games or PC games? If both, which ones do you prefer. The reason why I ask is you maybe coming from a PC school of gaming and your view of what a good game is or should be like maybe heavily affected by it.

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?

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?

This is the problem; why should we pay them for something they may or may not do in the future? You're saying we should pay them for this mediocre game, so they can fix the game to what it should have been in the very beginning. You're not going to get anyone but the die-hard fans to jump on board with this.

I know exactly what you are talking about, *cough* perfect world *cough*, but I would hardly throw CCP in the same category of small developers. I think CCP, from the large amount of financial capital they earn from EVE, may be banking on the whole "I enjoy it so i dont mind paying for a passive or active booster here and there" principle. It will take time for the game to finally reach the point where it could be considered complete, but even when it is considered complete the important thing to remember is that Dust, like EVE, will continue to be developed year after to year. I am not entirely opposed to Dust being a subscription based game, but I will not pay subscription fees while the game is at this stage in development, maybe when the game is a bit more complete, but not now.

I cannot agree with you in the idea of CCP hiring people who have experience working FPS games. While I have no doubt that they already have I think it would be a huge mistake for the game. All in all, FPS games are the same, move, shoot,, throw grenade, shoot, move some more, die, rinse repeat. The fact that FPS games are something new to CCP is what makes this game so special, if they started bringing in people who had worked on say COD, Dust may be in danger of losing its uniqueness and begin to take the shape of other FPS games.

https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=86026&find=unread

Hey Ludvig, I created a separate thread linked above and I want your feedback on this alternative idea.