a much better game like what,
BF3?
or COD?

both those games suck and BF3 is a shadow of it's once awesome self, the same as dust, hiring a bunch of FPS ppl will only get more sht nerfed.

no i dont want to pay to watch a bunch of idiots nerf more stuff because they wanna make it like everything else

no. it would alienate me and cause me not to play. kind of like eve after my 21 day trial.

No, as it stands now this game is nowhere near good enough to warrant a subscription fee

No. Aside from the fact that they have these merc packs which plenty of people buy, along with aurum sets, they make plenty of money off of it as is. Making DUST subscription based is probably one of the worst ideas ever seeing as how I'm pretty damn sure they make enough money from EVE to support this game, which is why they made it f2p.

Then there's also the fact that this game is still in it's baby phase, they're working on it and since they've never done something like this they're looking for a lot of outside help to make it better instead of having kept it in closed developement for 5 years before releasing the probably incomplete game even then.

And then there's ALSO their partnership with Sony. If they made it Pay to Play, then it would most likely violate their agreement with Sony assuming they don't change it over time; even if they did though, CCP would be at a loss for money as Sony would get at least 60-40 since the server is run through PSN.

Also:

>Pay to play + incomplete and very buggy game + small player base = Less player base, less money made

Seems really stupid, eh?

+1

Definitely the game should be sub based, unfortunately I suspect that horse has long bolted?

The constant 'in your face' advertising of Aur is insulting and it is definitely borderline 'play to win'. It definitely reduces the perceived professionalism of the whole game, no doubt about that. It could easily be some cheap web browser based app on a phone.

Having said that, I have purchased my share of Merc Packs for my 2 accounts. be interested to see what sort of revenue its bringing in via this means. I can't help but suspect that the devs might be thinking a stable revenue source (subs) might be easier to help them sleep at night.

+1

Definitely the game should be sub based, unfortunately I suspect that horse has long bolted?

The constant 'in your face' advertising of Aur is insulting and it is definitely borderline 'play to win'. It definitely reduces the perceived professionalism of the whole game, no doubt about that. It could easily be some cheap web browser based app on a phone.

Having said that, I have purchased my share of Merc Packs for my 2 accounts. be interested to see what sort of revenue its bringing in via this means. I can't help but suspect that the devs might be thinking a stable revenue source (subs) might be easier to help them sleep at night.

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?

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.

Game play and game design trumps all.

Dust fails at both - badly.

If you we're to look at the debt incurred producing and the ongoing costs of supporting Dust only one thing props it up - EVE subscriptions.

The crass bombardment of packs and options for micro transactions will only get you so far,there just doesn't seem the support for this game.

A subscription for this game would end it all rather elegantly - as in elegantly dead.

Still no
I dont mind microtransactions or one time fees and pay those if I think what they offer is worth it but something needs to stand head and shoulders above its competition or offer a massive amount of content for me to consider paying a subscription fee

i would quit if they made it a subscription based game. it is not good enough and many others would leave making the money they get off dust even less.

PLEX in Eve Online bring in a sizable amount of money for CCP because of the flexibility it offers to players in terms of subscription payments. Every time I go online and open the market in Eve, I check the different regions of New Eden and see countless sell orders posted averaging about 500 million ISK a piece depending on market forces and each PLEX costed the seller about $15 a piece. It makes me wonder how much money CCP is really making out of all this. The fact that they were able to afford a Symphony Orchestra during the 2013 Fanfest is very telling. Hell, you can even donate to charity through PLEX for (insert cause) as well as purchase Fanfest Tickets with them.

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.

I would only do so if it was actually a quality game and feature complete. At that point, if it was reasonably priced, I would accept a $5.00-7.50 a month sub fee. However I would expect more frequent free DLC, game updates, and general enhancements than at the F2P level.

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.

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.

Well something else to consider is the amount of negative press shutting down the current version and relaunching with a subscription based model would generate
What marketing they have done is heavily pimping this as free to play and a shift over would alienate those that are still kicking around only because its free to play and I imagine they would be left with a few hundred EVE players as the only ones remaining lowering potential profits especially if they manage to pay for their subscriptions purchasing time from other players in game, I know some people already do that EVE side

No i wouldn't. And many people won't either making PC boring cause corps will leave cause of members leaving the corp for other games tht are not subscription based and corps would shrink and not play it. No amount of money will get this game better any sooner. it's about time and patience. there r plenty of F2P games thts r good. WoTs especially and so on.

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.

I would stop playing Dust for sure, I would pay a 1 time $60 payment, but there is NO WAY I would ever pay subscription.

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.

i think it would have survived on consoles. it's a great game. just cause it isn't ur cup of tea doesn't mean people don't love it. Plus what makes it browser quality. Graphics? thts about it. the gameplay is absolutely Amazing. Unlike dust.

I would argue against that, there are many games out there across several genres that are entirely free to play and extremely high quality and feature complete

I like f2p games better than subscription games. I enjoy knowing that if I get tired or see a new shiny game to play that it is okay for me to put down what ever f2p game I was playing and come back to it later because I'm not paying a subscription for it. I can also play the f2p game when I'm dead broke and can't afford a subscription eating away at my monthly budget.

However, in essence, dust already has a subscription based method. The boosters make me feel like I'm paying for a subscription because I can't just leave the game without feeling like I'm not getting my money's worth. It is the exact same feeling I get when I pay a subscription for something. I'm okay with this brand of subscription as long as I can still play the game without having to use boosters and I can eventually get to exactly the same place as a booster person.

The type of f2p models that mixes subscriptions that I don't like are those that say you can never get to the same place as a subscriber. I think dust's model is doing well and I hope that it is a complete success because I want other f2p games to copy what dust is doing.

Yes graphics. The game is amazing on its own - it does not have to compete with anything else. The WOT developers made a relatively cheap game in its own novel genre. They get to dictate rules in their corner of the market. Unfortunately the same does nto apply to DUST, it's a late arrival in the world of console FPS. The MECHANICS of an FPS game have a pretty high bench mark that I think DUST wont reach without an extra development push.

there incentive now is if they bring nothing we stop buying arurm and the other stuff they release for it. and wat balance problems r there tht would be fixed by subscription based system.

Which ones would you offer as an example?

Street Fighter X Mega Man
Bunny Must Die
Katawa Shoujo
Spelunky
Mechwarrior Online
Cave Story
Net Hack
Dwarf Fortress
Slender
I Wanna Be The Guy


I could go on, the freeware market is full of excellent games

Another one of these threads...

Subscription based online play is why most people chose the PS3 over the Xbox, smart guy.

Aurum OR Subscription.
Until the game is fixed, good luck convincing people to purchase either.

I would only pay if we had MTAC's, Jets, all weapon variants, and received a hefty amount of content every month.

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.

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?

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.