These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Should CCP Change Subscription To F2P Or P2W

First post
Author
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#121 - 2016-08-23 03:02:28 UTC
Looblaloobla Timmay wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
No, it's just entitlement. The whole world is getting outraged right now because people won't give them free stuff and cave to their demands, and it's not just in gaming. Now don't get me wrong, if someone is in genuine trouble and their circumstances have become a barrier to basic survival, I think we should help. We don't owe them, but we should help. But video games are not a ******* component of basic survival. I spent a good year of my life homeless and worked my ******* arse off with neigh a handout to speak of to get myself off the street, into university and a half-decent communications degree, and into a half-decent freelance journalism gig. And then I see people whining about video games being too expensive, and I really just wanna shove a foot in their backside, boot and all. Reality check kids: the world, and life, does not part like the red sea to let you through.


You guys seem to be confusing "entitlement" with industry standard. The industry standard, has changed since the 80's. Just because it was more expensive to play a game back then, doesn't mean that prices should remain that way. With that same logic, all personal computers should still be in the tens of thousands. When I say tens of thousands I mean plural, because they really were that expensive. I'm sorry that you nerds used to walk in the snow both ways after shoveling someone's carport to earn your right to play an arcade game, but just because you did, and other people didn't, doesn't mean they are entitled. In fact it feels like you are the one entitled here, since you want everyone else to feel what your misery once was.


Your 'industry standard' is not just pandering to entitlement, it's taking advantage of it. Most f2p models are more expensive than their subscription counterparts if you want the same gaming experience that subscription players want. You can take SWTOR as an excellent example, because it has the 'best' of both worlds. Play it for free, and to get the same access to warzones, flashpoints, artefact gear, and other stuff that a subscription player gets for just $15 a month, you have to pay a whole lot more than $15 a month on cartel coins for 'passes' and unlocks.

How do you think things like this become 'industry standard'? It's not industry standard by the way, and we can dismiss that bunkum outright, but even if it were, it would only be because people like you are so easily taken for a ride by the word 'free'. Nothing is free, my dear, nothing.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Looblaloobla Timmay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#122 - 2016-08-23 03:58:04 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Looblaloobla Timmay wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
No, it's just entitlement. The whole world is getting outraged right now because people won't give them free stuff and cave to their demands, and it's not just in gaming. Now don't get me wrong, if someone is in genuine trouble and their circumstances have become a barrier to basic survival, I think we should help. We don't owe them, but we should help. But video games are not a ******* component of basic survival. I spent a good year of my life homeless and worked my ******* arse off with neigh a handout to speak of to get myself off the street, into university and a half-decent communications degree, and into a half-decent freelance journalism gig. And then I see people whining about video games being too expensive, and I really just wanna shove a foot in their backside, boot and all. Reality check kids: the world, and life, does not part like the red sea to let you through.


You guys seem to be confusing "entitlement" with industry standard. The industry standard, has changed since the 80's. Just because it was more expensive to play a game back then, doesn't mean that prices should remain that way. With that same logic, all personal computers should still be in the tens of thousands. When I say tens of thousands I mean plural, because they really were that expensive. I'm sorry that you nerds used to walk in the snow both ways after shoveling someone's carport to earn your right to play an arcade game, but just because you did, and other people didn't, doesn't mean they are entitled. In fact it feels like you are the one entitled here, since you want everyone else to feel what your misery once was.


Your 'industry standard' is not just pandering to entitlement, it's taking advantage of it. Most f2p models are more expensive than their subscription counterparts if you want the same gaming experience that subscription players want. You can take SWTOR as an excellent example, because it has the 'best' of both worlds. Play it for free, and to get the same access to warzones, flashpoints, artefact gear, and other stuff that a subscription player gets for just $15 a month, you have to pay a whole lot more than $15 a month on cartel coins for 'passes' and unlocks.

How do you think things like this become 'industry standard'? It's not industry standard by the way, and we can dismiss that bunkum outright, but even if it were, it would only be because people like you are so easily taken for a ride by the word 'free'. Nothing is free, my dear, nothing.


SWTOR I fail to see how that caters to "entitlement". You can play the game for free, yes, but it is severely hindered by various things. IE: less tool bars you can use, which makes the game unplayable to me tbh. I think it also greatly regulates how many times you can play in warzones, flashpoints, raids etc. So it has it's limitations. I don't think that is necessarily catering to entitled people. What it's in fact doing is placing a carrot at the end of the stick. That carrot being, if you pay the subscription, you can play the full game. The subscription even brings in a monthly amount of cartel coins that you can spend in that market. So unless you really are impatient, and can't wait to save up those coins, you can indeed spend more money for cartel coins. Which I feel is okay. Nothing in that cartel store is anything you really need. I don't see your connection on catering to entitled players in regards to SWTOR.

Now let's go and compare this game to World of Tanks. Which you CAN play for free. I do play that game for free. I have not payed a cent for that game. I do pay for it in time though, because there is this portion of the game called a pay wall. Which if you are not familiar with that term is where, if you don't spend money in the game, you progress very slowly until you make it past this wall. People can choose to spend money or not. Maybe I'm different from other gamers, but when it comes to finding a game that I can enjoy, and play it for cheap, I'll play it. Many games that are subscription based I really don't play. Excluding this game. However I have drastically decreased how many subscriptions I have. I simply feel that this game is too expensive for what they give you. It's a ten year old game for crying out loud.

I feel like in order for this game to stay alive they need to remain competitive. You only do that by adding content, or lowering prices. CCP has done both. They have added some content, and they lowered subscriptions if payed in bulk. They are doing this not to cater to entitlements. They are doing this because they need to meet their overhead, and like many older games it becomes harder and harder for them to do, unless they make it enticing to all players to play. This game not only competes with other games, but it also competes with Netflix, Pandora, Spotify, etc. When I do my finances with wifey, I am personally held accountable for what I spend from our money, and I can only pick from what I really enjoy most. It's not because we're poor, it's because we simply just do not want to pay for too many subscriptions. What people like you guys are saying is, screw the overhead, we don't want the new players, because they will be entitled, non-quality players. You know, because having, and maintaining a budget at home makes people like me entitled, and non-quality. Go ahead and and try to shove your boot up my backside. Real world economics states that if Eve Online cannot adapt to find new players to rejuvinate it's overhead, Eve Online will eventually end. You shoving boots up people's backsides doesn't help the matter at all. In fact I bet you don't even have any good ideas that are worth mentioning.

TLDR; I'm lecturing some old guy. I'mMad
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
#123 - 2016-08-23 04:35:34 UTC
Caco De'mon wrote:
I would have no problem with a free entry level that's heavily restricted such as:
- T1's only
- Up to frigates only
- Only the basic industry ships
- Only HS
- Industrial restriction
- only T1 mods
- SecStatus of -2.5 results in character suspension
- no reverting from a sub'ed or PLEX'ed account to this "beginner" account
- limit skill able to train and levels
- etc
- (ps put the damn torches away these are just ideas....)


Enough to let people get a real feel over months rather than the short 14 day (or whatever). The key to getting and retaining new players is to show them just how massive and in-depth EVE really is...and it takes more than a free weekend of short trial account to do that.


This I think would be much better than the current trial accounts they have - I'd say keep most, if not all the restrictions trials currently have, ie. no multiboxing, restricted skills etc. Add to it your suggestions of only high-sec, pennalizing accounts that go -2.5 sec, take away implants, had a couple other things to add but forgot them between the time starting this post and now.... o.O old age sucks
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#124 - 2016-08-23 04:46:21 UTC
Looblaloobla Timmay wrote:
SWTOR I fail to see how that caters to "entitlement". You can play the game for free, yes, but it is severely hindered by various things.


Exactly. This is your precious 'industry standard', the abuse of customers. A few exceptions to this standard don't make it a good model, nor does it make it one that would suit EVE. You're also trying to apply 'industry standard' to a game that is nowhere near industry standard.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Paddie Whack
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#125 - 2016-08-23 06:27:29 UTC
Once again, NO
roberts dragon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2016-08-23 11:53:09 UTC
I would say over time they will have to go free to play look at world of tanks how much cash they bring in compared to eve online big difference I enjoy the game but are not active due to friend gone awol .
at the end of the day business is business period and eve would benefit by the influx of new players , and as for the the old ones/players been playing for years may the force be with you

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#127 - 2016-08-23 12:20:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
roberts dragon wrote:
I would say over time they will have to go free to play look at world of tanks how much cash they bring in compared to eve online big difference I enjoy the game but are not active due to friend gone awol .
at the end of the day business is business period and eve would benefit by the influx of new players , and as for the the old ones/players been playing for years may the force be with you

A 13 year old subscription game going free to play?

It wouldn't be hard to see that as an act of desperation before the final nail is driven home. The gaming press, who like Eve for the most part because it makes great headlines, would crucify CCP.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Looblaloobla Timmay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#128 - 2016-08-23 13:16:39 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Looblaloobla Timmay wrote:
SWTOR I fail to see how that caters to "entitlement". You can play the game for free, yes, but it is severely hindered by various things.


Exactly. This is your precious 'industry standard', the abuse of customers. A few exceptions to this standard don't make it a good model, nor does it make it one that would suit EVE. You're also trying to apply 'industry standard' to a game that is nowhere near industry standard.


I would hardly call SWTOR industry standard.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2016-08-23 13:26:31 UTC
Looblaloobla Timmay wrote:


I would hardly call SWTOR industry standard.


What you would call it is irrelevant to what it is.

Looblaloobla Timmay wrote:

TLDR: I'm going to start a finger pointing war because I have no point and now I need to shift blame to someone else so that I can look good.


Your ignorance of the point doesn't mean there isn't one.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Caco De'mon
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#130 - 2016-08-23 13:37:16 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
A 13 year old subscription game going free to play?

It wouldn't be hard to see that as an act of desperation before the final nail is driven home. The gaming press, who like Eve for the most part because it makes great headlines, would crucify CCP.[/quote]

There is a paradox here.

If business was great and customers constantly stable, increasing or with predicted years of growth then there would be no need to rethink the business model. However, if through various reasons, the business model is showing that the future may not be stable and that the end is nigh, wouldn't that indicate that CCP needs to do something different, most likely on the more drastic side of the equation?

If something is dying and needs to adapt, telling it that if it changes it will die is a moot point. It's a bit of denial.

The gaming world today is vastly different than it was 13 years ago and the age of subs is clearly over...why kill eve if there is a chance to change its direction through a modified business model?

*"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."

Looblaloobla Timmay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2016-08-23 13:58:06 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Looblaloobla Timmay wrote:


I would hardly call SWTOR industry standard.


What you would call it is irrelevant to what it is.

Looblaloobla Timmay wrote:

TLDR: I'm going to start a finger pointing war because I have no point and now I need to shift blame to someone else so that I can look good.


Your ignorance of the point doesn't mean there isn't one.


He had no point if you look it. He was completely sarcastic in what he said, and then shifted blame on carebears.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#132 - 2016-08-23 14:01:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Caco De'mon wrote:
If business was great and customers constantly stable, increasing or with predicted years of growth then there would be no need to rethink the business model. However, if through various reasons, the business model is showing that the future may not be stable and that the end is nigh, wouldn't that indicate that CCP needs to do something different, most likely on the more drastic side of the equation?


You make an excellent point, but not the one you think you've made.

If EVE goes F2P or not, it won't be up to anyone on this forum. All of these 'arguments' are useless without the data to show one way or the other the health of the game now, and what effect changing to an F2P model would have. Only CCP have that info, but anyone that's been here for more than a few minutes and understands well enough the core nature of EVE online knows that F2P would damage the game at its most fundamental level, that of its mechanics. Much of the game would have to change to implement the model, and how much would that cost? Did CCP just invest as much as they did in server upgrades because the company/game is unhealthy?

Of course they didn't. Here's the other problem.

F2P models rely on a very small number of people paying lots of money to keep the game afloat, aka 'whales'. Anyone that takes the game seriously enough now to be one such whale is going to bail if the game goes F2P though, so the game will have to attract new ones, which means getting new people with an actual interest and passion for EVE Online to play if CCP wants to turn some modicum of a profit. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who play f2p games are extremely casual and fleeting. With the old guard gone, CCP are going to have a lot more work to do to attract said whales, than if they'd just paid more attention to people who have a real passion for this game and didn't do some of the stupid **** they've done in the first place to chase them off.

As noted above, CCP are still investing a lot of money in this game, and despite making some rather dumb moves, they haven't really done anything to EVE that looks like an act of desperation yet. They're nowhere near even considering an F2P model, but when they do, you can bet your bottom dollar that EVE will indeed be on its final legs.

F2P doesn't save games. In order to successfully implement a free to play model, you have to design the game itself with that model in mind. Or have a really popular IP on the box, like Star Wars (seriously, SWTOR only survived because it's star wars and we all know it. I quite enjoy it myself, but even I won't deny it's tacky and cheap implimentation and presentation throughout most of it).

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Jack AmarrX
Doomheim
#133 - 2016-08-23 14:12:11 UTC
I think if EVE does go FTP (I don't think it should, but it's worth considering at least) the F2P version should be the base game, as it exists now.

Limiting the people paying for free in any way (restricting them to hi-sec for example, or not letting them join corps) will be bad for the game as it will promote styles of game play that EVE is not necessarily well suited to (solo missioning/mining) and lots of players (though not all) will get bored and drop off rather quickly. F2P has to retain players.

It's also hard to introduce paid for expansions, because every expansion in EVE normally adds depth, rather than brand new content that you can gate for paying customers only. You could argue that citadels could be gated, only being able to construct them if you are a paying customer, but then subscribers could accept ISK to set them up, circumventing this issue. You could stop free accounts from docking with them, but as Outposts and POS's bow out, that will make it very hard for free players to play in nulsec or wormholes. Gating update content is thus too impractical to consider, IMO.

So where would the money come from?

SKINS and Apparel could be a good source. Skins would need it's pricing changed, focusing on quantity, and apparel will need to be accompanied by more meaningful WiS, but both offer a source of income for CCP that does not affect the game in any way.

Buying Aurum and ISK might also be good. Aurum should be sold in packages on the market. Similar to the PLEX market. You buy Aurum for real world money, and you can either sell it to another player at a rate dictated by the market, or exchange it for skins and apparel. This adds a way for players to buy ISK with real world currency.

A third option, Subscribers, could be added. Perhaps once a month they are given a load of Aurum, some skill injectors and some limited edition skins, corp logos on ships, and other goodies. As long as the monthly payout is more than the individual worth of the items in real world currency, there will be a market for it.

The subscribers could also have access to the only gated content I can see working, and that's Capital ships. Dreds, Carriers, Super carriers, Titans, Freighters and Jump Freighters, as well as the Orca and Roqual could be quite easily locked to free accounts.

So in EVE real world currency would buy you - Skill Injectors, ISK, Skins, Apparel and everything included under the subscriber rewards scheme, as well as access to capital ships.

Now some of you might argue that buying SP and ISK with real world currency is P2W. I think that's incorrect. The most important resource in EVE is the actual experience of the pilot. ISK and SP are important resources, but only to a relatively finite degree, and disadvantages in either can be easily overcome with our friend N+1. 10 pilots with 10mil SP will always beat one pilot with 100 mil SP.

The only way EVE could become P2W is if they add modules, weapons and ammo that provide a huge advantage and little draw back to fitting them. I doubt they ever would.

Anyway just my 2 cents. As I said I think the subscriber model is best, CCP just need to focus on getting old players to return, and new players to stay.
Solecist Project
#134 - 2016-08-23 14:17:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
Looblaloobla Timmay wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Looblaloobla Timmay wrote:


I would hardly call SWTOR industry standard.


What you would call it is irrelevant to what it is.

Looblaloobla Timmay wrote:

TLDR: I'm going to start a finger pointing war because I have no point and now I need to shift blame to someone else so that I can look good.


Your ignorance of the point doesn't mean there isn't one.


He had no point if you look it. He was completely sarcastic in what he said, and then shifted blame on carebears.

This is perfect.
You read things with bias and don't recognize that you have bias ...
... and no matter what anyone would say ...
... you are stuck in your belief.

Then you pull a Hitler and talk about oppression ...
... not realizing that the only one here who tries to oppress discussion is you:
By whoring cheaply via "youmad" and "hemad" and grabbing attention ...
... distracting and driving away those who want to talk about the topic.

And people actually waste time talking to you...

You prove my points about certain people with your very own behaviour ...
... so please keep going.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#135 - 2016-08-23 14:18:54 UTC
Looblaloobla Timmay wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Looblaloobla Timmay wrote:


I would hardly call SWTOR industry standard.


What you would call it is irrelevant to what it is.

Looblaloobla Timmay wrote:

TLDR: I'm going to start a finger pointing war because I have no point and now I need to shift blame to someone else so that I can look good.


Your ignorance of the point doesn't mean there isn't one.


He had no point if you look it. He was completely sarcastic in what he said, and then shifted blame on carebears.


I guess I'll have to keep this line on a clipboard somewhere specifically for replying to you.

Your ignorance of the point doesn't mean there isn't one.

I even wrote a whole post elaborating on Sol's point, and you ignored that too. Well done. You have successfully exceeeded the point that I thought was the limit of human ignorance. /GolfClap

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Looblaloobla Timmay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#136 - 2016-08-23 14:51:18 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Looblaloobla Timmay wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Looblaloobla Timmay wrote:


I would hardly call SWTOR industry standard.


What you would call it is irrelevant to what it is.

Looblaloobla Timmay wrote:

TLDR: I'm going to start a finger pointing war because I have no point and now I need to shift blame to someone else so that I can look good.


Your ignorance of the point doesn't mean there isn't one.


He had no point if you look it. He was completely sarcastic in what he said, and then shifted blame on carebears.

This is perfect.
You read things with bias and don't recognize that you have bias ...
... and no matter what anyone would say ...
... you are stuck in your belief.

Then you pull a Hitler and talk about oppression ...
... not realizing that the only one here who tries to oppress discussion is you:
By whoring cheaply via "youmad" and "hemad" and grabbing attention ...
... distracting and driving away those who want to talk about the topic.

And people actually waste time talking to you...

You prove my points about certain people with your very own behaviour ...
... so please keep going.


lol. Defining Fascism and then describing your actions as sort of mirroring that sort of thing doesn't make me Hitler. Nice try. Then you are going on about how I'm proving your point about certain "non-quality" people. (I injected that part, because we shouldn't forget that you started the whole people quality control thing here in this thread.) To justify your own terrible behavior on the forums. Gotcha.
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#137 - 2016-08-23 14:59:44 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Max Trix
Removed several post for the following reason, which also resulted in response post being deleted too.

Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.


4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

6. Racism and discrimination are prohibited.

Racism, gender stereotyping, hate speech, and sexism are not permitted on the EVE Online Forums. Derogatory posting that includes race, religion or sexual preference based personal attacks and trolling can result in immediate suspension of forum posting privileges.

7. Discussion of real life religion and politics is prohibited.

Discussion of real life religion and politics is strictly prohibited on the EVE Online forums. Discussions of this nature often creates animosity between forum users due to real life political or military conflicts. CCP promotes the growth of a gaming community where equality is at the forefront. Nationalist, religious or political affiliations are not part of EVE Online, and should not be part of discussion on the EVE Online forums.


Keep the personal attacks out of the forums, along with personal real life politics. Thread Reopened.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.

Caco De'mon
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#138 - 2016-08-23 15:25:03 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
...


I replied but it was lost when the thread was temp-locked...throwing in the white towel as this place is ludicrousness....

*"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."

ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#139 - 2016-08-23 15:32:52 UTC
Caco De'mon wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
...


I replied but it was lost when the thread was temp-locked...throwing in the white towel as this place is ludicrousness....


One of the downsides of the way the forum functions. If we don't lock the threads when we do a large clean up, we run the risk of crashing the forum server.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.

Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#140 - 2016-08-23 16:26:01 UTC
ISD Max Trix wrote:
Caco De'mon wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
...


I replied but it was lost when the thread was temp-locked...throwing in the white towel as this place is ludicrousness....


One of the downsides of the way the forum functions. If we don't lock the threads when we do a large clean up, we run the risk of crashing the forum server.



Re-affirming the forum software is shite.

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.