Same here. I think this horse will never be put out of its misery...

And this is the problem with the current model- cartel market based f2p doesn't really prioritize content. That's not where the money comes from. Most f2p development is based around the conversion rate of the content that's put in. And real content doesn't have that number.

This is what I'm talking about. It's a finite length to determine if the game is for you. I'd place some limits, i.e. gold transfer, you can only chat with people on your friends list, and mail. But other than that... wide open.

So, as a real question... you went preferred after having been subbed... what would make you go back to a subscription?

And truthfully, I think that's more honest. I've never advocated taking away limitations- just being more honest about it. Instead of f2p with insane restrictions, why not make it a trial with buy2play to remove all of the limitations that exist to a certain level instead of nickel-and-diming? If someone hasn't upgraded from pure free to play after a generous trial (maybe the first world?) with minimal limitations (mail, money, and chat), then I don't think they ever will. Stuff them on the first world as a trial, then allow them either to sub, or buy everything off in one purchase. The impression it gives in the nickel-and-dime way it's presented right now isn't favorable, IMO.

I'm not saying me. I'm just having empathy for other situations, and the realization that there are other situations, and that I don't know each and every one of them. Is that such a foreign concept?

No, assuming that you know everything about anyone's situation is that part. There are more situations under the sun than anyone can imagine- so not to be able to at least keep from being judgemental, i.e. if you can't afford $15 a month you shouldn't be on a game.

I have no idea what you're even saying. Learn some basic typing skills, then try again. Of course, you dismiss any alternative explanations, because you don't want to actually try to argue or expand your viewpoint. Everything I said was indeed true, but it really doesn't even matter at this point.

How so? Nothing that I'd advocate would actually be giving the f2p players anything... it would just be more honest. And I've been subscribed since the beginning, even though I stopped playing before the rise of the hutts. To make it even worse, I've bought every expansion, even though I didn't start playing again until the very end of the SoR pre-order period. Why? Just to support a star wars property, and because I sort of liked it, and figured I'd be back some day, and the money didn't really mean anything to me. And since I've been back, I can say comfortably I've spent more than most people probably did including their sub for the past year. I'm not arguing anything for my benefit. I'm just saying that for the longevity of the game and the impression their current method gives to players that are potential customers. I know someone who is in the exact same boat as myself in terms of finances. I convinced him to play with me for a while, and he said the game really wasn't for him, but I convinced him that what he was seeing wasn't representative of the game as a whole, and he should try it as a subscriber. He did... and still subscribes and spends money. He was still playing while I wasn't. The f2p didn't draw him in... I did. And it wasn't because of money or anything... but directly related to how bad the f2p is. Imagine if he'd tried it without me there with him to convince him of that. The game should convince you to join... not turn you off because of it's heavy handed presentation of the option, IMO. And it doesn't do that right now.

How... judgmental of you.

I'ts funny that you responded... since you were the one I agreed with and made the statement.

What strawman is there in my argument? I can point yours out. I don't think you're using the term in the way that it is meant, unless I'm really off in my cognition of my own argument, so I ask this in all seriousness. Back on the topic at hand, I never said anything about goodies, or even giving them more. I said there were other ways to restrict and give access and convert other than the restrictions in silly (but easy to implement) locations that give a bad impression of the game. And a bad impression makes a person less likely to see value in the game.

The primary purpose of f2p isn't to get people to play for free, it is to get them to see the value of what they will be getting, and convert. It's not about not being able to pay $15 a month in most cases- it's not seeing the value in doing so. So, removing those two straw men right quick... The restrictions places on f2p make many people unwilling to give the game it's fair shake because they are so restrictive, in experiencing the game they would be playing, and in seeing the actual value for the money spent. Therefore, the conversion rate is lower. Should there be restrictions? Yeah... but I see many ways they could make the restrictions move towards conversion and make it more logical, in all honesty. The choices made are the ones that require the least effort, and are definitely more stick than carrot, IMO.

This is the only statement that matters. The OP asked a specific question, and people are attempting to remote parent someone else's child lol

Yes, that's pretty obvious. But it's the carrot vs. the stick argument that people are discussing. And f2p in SWTOR is definitely stick, where in others that I play... Defiance, Rift, DCUO... it's more carrot.