'If' the game goes F2P, What happens?

F2P is actually a very, very bad thing. Free to Play literally means free to fail, pay to win. F2P games bring in 400-600% the monthly revenues as compared to a subscription based model, but they are short-lived games because decent players who don't want to simply buy their strength via cash shop microtransactions will leave.

If it was going to go F2P I wouldn't mind if they still allowed players who wanted to still play on separate servers to those, who are playing for free. I don't really want to sound like a snob but I would rather have separate servers for the two as otherwise technically we subs would be paying tax for the F2P players to play.

The critics will fall asleep easier knowing they were right about it. They kept chanting this will go f2p and they'll be happy.

People either play the MMO they like or give everyone else a hard time with the MMO they don't like...

I don't think that'll happen anytime soon. They seem to be pretty competitive in supporting SWTOR... not to mention I doubt EA will let them, for some reason. Warhammer Online has like what, 2-3 servers left for both the US and EUROPE? And that didn't go F2P... though I suspect they didn't want to spend any more resources on the game either, which a transition from P2P to F2P requires.

Not really true. A lot of F2P games with microtransactions don't give you epic gear or anything; a lot of it is cosmetic. It's more like 'play for free and you'll have minimum access; the more you pay, the more access to the game you'll have.'

I wouldn't know, but I'll take your word for it. TOR is likely the first and last MMO that I ever play unless a Mass Effect MMO is released for consoles. From my stance now, I'd much rather just not play the $15 per month and enjoy everything that's already in the game. I'd be willing to pay for future content at reasonable prices that are somewhat comparable to the cost of a subscription.

Actually, no. F2P sucks. Their only source of revenue is the cash shop (apart from tiny income from maybe launcher ads), and that ensures an ever increasing dependence on cash shop items in order to remain competitive. Those games that are now only cosmetic items will later offer pots that are better than you can get in game, share a different cooldown, something of that sort. Wait for it.

I come from Gravity's F2P Requiem, which is a prime example of this.

Sure... but the thing is, concerning F2P... LucasArts won't let them do so.

Look at SWG.

I always thought that TF2 wasn't that heavily focused on microtransactions before going F2P... but i guess I was wrong... oh well, it happens.

Also, most of the microtransactions that Blizzard does are almost as expensive as a one month sub to the game, and the fact that you have to pay for server transfers and such are a good chunk of the money they're making from the game.

In addition, F2P games that were once subscription games have once again been revitalized because it brings more attention to them. Games that people probably wouldn't have paid for (hard copy and subscription) now have more users because they're now free to play. Games like LoTRO, DCUO, and Lineage have upped their playerbase many times over, and also, people are more willing to pay a dollar or two at a time for usually cosmetic items, and that stacks up.

Just saying... even if a subscription game goes F2P, it usually succeeds in the long run.

From what I understand, F2P is actually far more profitable. So theoretically going F2P could mean that the game is going *well*, and they are trying to cash in on it as much as possible.

That being said, most F2P's tend to end up in that descending spiral of going from "pay for cosmetics" to "pay to win".