SOE Revises Pay-to-Win Plans for Planetside 2 Following Uproar

Gamefront: "Developers don’t always make the right decisions, but when they listen to the community, these poor decisions can just as easily be reverted to appease the game’s fanbase. Case in point: Sony Online Entertainment planned to introduce paid-for buffs into Planetside 2."

[GribbleGrunger]

I'm a little confused by this. Isn't that how a FTP game works? Don't you either play through the game to unlock everything or pay for the privilege of getting it early? What's the difference here?

[Ilwrath]

In a case like paying for unlocks, I'm sure that's fine. Paying for advantageous consumable buffs in a team-based game is different.

[mattdillahunty]

the good way to implement a cash shop in a f2p game is to have cosmetic or account stuff in the shop that doesn't affect how you perform against others. alternate outfits, extra character slots, weapon skins, vehicle skins, character faces, etc. things like that will appeal to some people, but those who don't want to buy it won't be at a disadvantage, because it won't affect gameplay either way.

pay-to-win is stuff along the lines of paying for buffs, or more ammo or weapon slots, more grenades, health boosts, whatever. those things give you a definite advantage over another player who chooses not to purchase them, and that matters in a game where you're playing against another person. it's not fair, and it's not good game design.

originally, the developers said they would not have any sort of pay-to-win things in the game:

http://www.shacknews.com/ar...

but putting in buffs that are paid for, if these are buffs that make the character better or stronger in some way, is the definition of pay-to-win and flies in the face of what the developers said they would not do.

[STK026]

In my opinion, the best way to make a Free to play game (while also making it financially viable) is by selling cosmetic items and allowing to buy some boosts that do not give you an in-game advantage over non paying players. As an example, League of Legends allows you to buy champions, champion skins and IP and XP boosts. However, champions can all be bought with IP, and don't take forever to unlock (unlike some other free to play games where you can technically unlock everything... if you play for an eternity). In game, a paying customer doesn't have any advantage.

On the other hand, some games have decided to really go the Pay to win way. These games will give in-game advantages to paying customers, giving them a health boost, or non unlockable weapons that must be bought with real cash, and also happen to be overpowered. The issue with pay to win games, is that, for the single player games, they make levels nearly unbeatable unless you pay, limiting your progression. As for multiplayer games, it means that once a few players start paying, they get an unfair advantage over other players, which will affect their gaming experience negatively; which usually leads to one of two things, either they start paying too, or they quit the game.

[ZeroX9876]

league of legends do it properly, by giving you many cosmetic and a small early advantage with runes, but that's it

[3-4-5]

Been playing PC since late March.

This game is NOT pay to win. Just a bunch of people who when they miss a shot or die, blame anything and everyone for their lack of skill.

I played for free and spent $0.00 on this game and I am able to take out players who have spent $70 on this game no problem.

The Original guns you start off with in every class are actually the most balanced and useful guns in the game.

The fact of the matter is if 100,00 people are playing this, 90,000 of them think they are "GOD" at this game and get angry when every situation doesn't go there way.

They are excuse makers who are angry and arrogant.

I havne't played lately as it gets old after a while with nothing to gain but a few certs for upgrades but it's a GREAT free to play game with good graphics and cool gameplay you can't find anywhere else.

It's NOT pay to win though, as I've destroyed many players with the best guns. Not like I'm amazing but it proved if your good at a game, you can be good with anything.

Not to mention it's classed based and that is too advanced for most FPS gamers.

[Dojan123]

I have paid over $200 for PS2 and I can tell you it is not play to win for me. I still stink at it :)

[sigfredod]

good to hear

[MysticStrummer]

The implants were also buyable with in game "cash" that you earned by playing, so how was that pay to win?

I thought pay to win meant you could only buy them with real money.

[Miraak82]

argg thats what they did with DCUo and replay badges , it was pretty much the beginning of the end for me and alot of other people and it just kept getting worse .

[MiasmaDodo]

1-are they paying for weapons or perks not available if you just leveled up?

2-or just paying for weapons earlier?

if its "2" no big deal; if its "1" thats kinda lame , but its their cash

[Gran Touring]

1) There are no perks, just weapon upgrades, and those are only available through the in-game currency.
2) Everyone has access to new weapons at the same time, and buying weapons doesn't net a player a true advantage over another. Buying a new weapon is almost always considered a "side-grade" instead of upgrade.

Planetside 2 is one of the few games that has a smart implementation of the F2P model in that its really never pay-2-win. Fans are upset because these consumable implants allow for a strategic advantage over other players who don't have the in-game currency. Not that its really expensive, but those who pay for more could abuse the system

[MiasmaDodo]

Interesting.

I plan on giving this game a try on PS4.
hopefully people with big pockets wont overpower to much.

[Gran Touring]

They really won't. I've been playing PS2 since November and at level 50, have only spent maybe $15 on the game. If you want to be better in Planetside, it's just like any other FPS; you just have to be a better player. Weapons n such really just cater towards your desired playstyle.

[Deltaguy]

um then how is planet side getting revenue?

[fourOeightshark]

I don't know why people think pay to win is a bad thing when the game is free. Should people that don't give anything back to the developers even have a say in this?

[Gran Touring]

Because it defeats the purpose of "free to play." If not paying is so detrimental to the developers, then they should have just released a full retail game. Having a free-to-play game lowers the barrier of entry for new players, but there also needs to be balance to keep them playing and not feel underpowered.

[fourOeightshark]

But why would they want freeloaders to keep playing? they aren't making money from them.

[BISHOP-BRASIL]

"Freeloaders" keep the servers full, no one pays to play an empty multiplayer game.

[Gran Touring]

How are they freeloaders in the first place? It's "Free to play." The idea is to entice people enough to shell out real money for in-game assets. What I'm saying is that you won't get new players if pay-to-win players dominate the servers, which begs the question, why go F2P in the first place?

Case in point: Battlefield Play4Free. The game is virtually unplayable for newcomers as the average player has already spend $25+ on better weapons and skill upgrades

[fourOeightshark]

I would rather pay for weapons or buffs instead of skins.

[Gran Touring]

...And in Planetside you can do that. You can pay for as many weapons as you want, and upgrades are relatively cheap. If you don't want to buy skins, you don't have to.

[Pandamobile]

Free2play games that give purchasers unfair advantages over free players don't often flourish for very long.

Pay2win is used with negative connotation to describe a poorly designed Free2play game that does not have a level playing field between the free players and the paying players.

In order for a F2P game to actually work, the core game has to be the same. The idea is to get people hooked by the F2P aspect of it (free = accessible), and then later on, once the players have invested a decent amount of time with the game, they might be swayed to invest some money in it to further their enjoyment. Things like cosmetic items are usually the biggest draw for people.

Team Fortress 2 is a good example of F2P done right. Every weapon in the game can be either purchased or found through other (free) means. The weapons are also balanced in such a way that there is no weapon that is objectively better than another one. I've probably spent an additional $50-100 on items in TF2 since it went F2P in 2011 because I'm so invested in the community. For some reason, seeing a cool looking hat for my Spy appealed to me enough to make me actually buy it. That's how you do F2P.

[Dojan123]

Have they stated if our PC purchases will cross over to the PS4? I understand the certs (in game currency) wont but what about cosmetics?