As a subscriber I approve this message.
As a subscriber I approve this message.
MLP Friendship Is Magic - Republic - The HarbingerThe Madhi LegacySlugfest - 55 Watchman Sentinel | Slugtrooper - 55 Gunnery Commando | Slugconsular - 55 Seer Consular | Slackfest - 55 Sharpshooter Gunslinger | Slugagent - 55 Marksmanship Sniper | Slugwarrior- 55 Annihilation Marauder | Slughunter- 55 Arsenal Mercenary | Slugsorcerer- 55 Lightning Sorcerer
It's not a republican outlash, and there is no commentary that I gave on the people who are listing things higher than the credit cap (which, for the record now, is mostly ignorant by those who are listing things over the cap). However, it can be applicable if, for instance, a sub player is buying things off the GTN to give to a friend who is f2p. Just saying.
My complaint is the guy who is saying that sub players shouldn't be able to set market prices for f2p items. If you're f2p, then you are subject to what's going on. You can't ask to play the game for free and then also ask that everything be given to you so that you can play the game for free but get the full (or almost full) benefits of someone paying their sub. There would be no reason to be a sub player.
I pay my sub. I damn well SHOULD have much more control over the game and SHOULD receive more than a f2p player.
---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 11:23 AM ----------
I'm ridiculing people asking to have all of the things that I pay for, and the person who suggested that subbed players shouldn't be able to set prices for items. That's downright ignorant.
F2p is a different payment model. Not inferior, not superior. Different.
Your 15 dollars does not make you a superior member of the swtor community. Plenty of people will spend that or more as f2p.
You don't deserve more say. Period.
As the f2p model gets fleshed out in the days to come I wouldn't be surprised if they expand the model to the point where you can do hm/nmm ops and ranked wzs. At which point the f2p model will be a complete model equal to subscription.
If anyone should be catered to it should be f2p. Subscribers are clearly happy if they are dropping 15/mo. And so far EA has bent over more for f2pers in the past month than it has for subscribers in the past year.
Last edited by Bardarian; 2012-11-27 at 04:37 PM.
It's a response to the guy saying that the sub players shouldn't be allowed to list items for so much on the GTN, and then someone else asking for credit-capped prices on the GTN.
If you want items that are too expensive, sub. If you're a subbed player who is ignorant enough to list things for f2p players and you list them over the credit cap, that's your own stupid fault for being an idiot.
Either way, we don't need credit caps on GTN items, and we don't need to be making sure sub player are selling things for cheap so people don't have to pay as much for them.
We don't really need a communist economy in the game, that would be terrible. It just would solve the specific problem. A much more realistic and acceptable solution would be to charge less coins for these items. It would allow subscribers to have more buying power with their stipend, drive prices of these items down lower, and also make it easier for F2P players to be enticed to purchase unlocks from either method.
Unfortunately the caveat being that EA would make less money. So yeah, that's not going to happen either.
The overarching point is that they're never going to make every player happy. And every player who isn't happy feels the need to come on message board and tell others that [whatever game] is terrible because of [whatever issue].
I'm not a Call of Duty fan, but I love Halo. I've never bought a COD game, but I've also never been on their forum talking about how much I hate it. I just don't understand why people think this is a way to solve problems.
Maybe I'm too old. It very well could be that.
1)Lowering the costs of items in the Cartel Market provides your stipend with a greater buying power (as you can buy more items)
2)Adding more Extras/fun items in the shop give you a wider variety of things to buy with your stipend.
3)Additionally, I specifically mentioned perks for subscribers. Think things like increased commendations from daily FPs and Space Missions. Discounts on legacy unlocks from credits. Etc.
How exactly this would make a sane person feel that a subscription isn't worth it is beyond me.
I logged in a few days ago after being unsubbed for a few months, found I'd have to pay to be able to use all my abilities, and promptly logged out again. My main joy in the game comes from leveling alts, but if I couldn't even do that properly I wasn't gonna bother.
I'm really glad to hear this change though, as that was my main gripe (I can live with all the other free to play restrictions). I'll probably play again once this goes live.
If the only "benefit" of subscriber is supposed to be stuff on the Cartel Market I wouldn't bother to subscribe. How does it become valid to get more "coins or commodations" for your daily flashpoint etc.? No you shouldn't get more... F2P player should get less because otherwise you completely overthrow the balance currently existing in the game. Meaning... currently it "feels" like you have to do something for your black hole gear, it feels you have to put some work to get your pvp gear. If all rewards will be doubled or trippled for subscribers... I have my stuff even faster, meaning I wouldn't bother to log in as often as I do now.
They don't need to put silly restrictions like actionbars, rewards or conversations... things which can really hurt your leveling up experience but from there... You want to raid? buy your raid pass. You want to do pvp, buy your pvp pass. You want to do both... well being subsribed is cheaper... let's subscribe.
There was never any point to the model the EA-Bioware went with, in their supposedly free to play model, other that excessive greed. It functions wholly off of depriving players of all sorts of things, very basic functions included, in order to force them to pay, or get out, rather than enticing them to spend money on neat stuff.
You can't convince me that the subscribers are the problem in this situation.
Subscribers' game experience has not changed, except for the addition of the Cash Shop, since launch. It was a good experience and still is, and that's why I'm still subscribed and a lot of others are as well.
I take the viewpoint that the problem is with people who originally subscribed, quit, and then came back under the f2p model, paid nothing, and expected the exact same experience (many under the guise that they 'deserved' something because they used to be a subscriber - which is wholly laughable). These are the people who are pissing and moaning on the forums, poisoning General chat with their rants, and are generally causing havoc. These are the people who should just get out of the experience altogether. They are not happy, they won't be happy. They want the full experience they had when they subscribed, but don't want to pay for it.
In reality, if you take the system for what it IS... i.e., NOT compare it to LOTRO, or WOW, or whatever other thing... then it works, and it works fine. There is a f2p model. There is a much better experience available to subscribers.
It's like my Kindle Fire. It comes with the basic experience. If I want to remove ads, I pay extra. If I want to subscribe to Amazon Prime, I get a shitload of things (movies, music, books, etc) as part of that subscription. But the basic experience is good as well and it works. It may not be everything I want, but if I choose not to pay extra, I'm certainly getting what I paid for.
I think its pretty understandable that people would be pissed after investing 60-150 dollars on the box only to see it free less than a year later and them not even receive a title or mount for it. I think something small like that would have soothed a lot of the rage. Give people tauntaun mounts or something. That would have been a great idea.
---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 11:19 AM ----------
Free market, you don't HAVE to like everything, and companies don't HAVE to try to cater to every gamer (nor should they try).
Even when people feel "meh" about items like a tauntaun mount, being acknowledged, even in a small way, helps people not feel screwed.
---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 04:27 PM ----------
I happen to view swtors f2p model as viable but in need of a few changes. If someone views the model an not viable, they are probably not going to play the game.
For example, Allods (spl?) has an amazingly ridiculous grind that boarders on abusive to f2p accounts. In my opinion, f2p should be either able to grind to play or pay to play but when the grind is too great it is used to bully people into subscribing. Some people think swtor does the same thing with its restrictions. I have never tried Allods after seeing its payment model. If I thought the same of swtor, I wouldn't try it.
Its important to have a competitive model.