Stupid F2P Restrictions

Yea, to add to this with my experience, though I do occasionally buy items on the GTN, most of my gear is drop based. I find I compensate for this by engaging in the same practice I do in single player RPGs I play...I outlevel the area I am in. That way my level gives me the power boost I need. I try to stay 3 to 4 levels above what the minimum level is for a particular planet or flashpoint.

I guess it's a matter of the "value of use". In your example of a consumable the value of use was in the consumption. The value of use of a virtual "property" has a longer "value of use" this is certain. But, if you compare the virtual product to a non-consumable like a book, DVD or CD unless those items are stolen from you their value of use is much longer than the probability that the virtual item will be around. As soon as the service on which those items are provided shuts down you have them effectively stolen from you.

It's bad enough to pay for a game service and go about "collecting" "virtual things" with in the context of utilizing the game service but, to pay extra money to aquire virtual things that aren't needed I will never understand.

Post #399 this thread.

Do you think that the people that didn't stick with it left due to the lack of convenience options? I think they left for other reasons, such as a disagreement with how end-game was handled, on-rails space, unhandled bugs, pvp balance, downtime during prime-time hours, empty servers and other similar problems.

I've had friends leave the game as well. Not one of them cared about convenience or lack of it. The game will succeed or fail based on how good the game itself is, not at what level you unlock sprint, if you have to pay to unlock purple items, etc

Reading through this thread I'm left wondering what exactly free to play MMO meant to some of you or what experiences you had with F2P. There are several F2P MMO's out there and all I can suggest to some of is to go play them for a little bit to see how the model works. They are free so it will only cost you time but what you should get out of it is the understanding that bioware is doing pretty much the same thing and these restrictions you have to pay to unlock (unless subscribed) are actually on par. Nothing is truly free and unless you play casually and only focus on one certain aspect of the game, the subscription will always be the best option.

As for some of the flash point and warzone concerns for the restrictions not helping out subscribers with more frequent pops, let me test that logic: (these numbers are not exact but instead just a example)
Currently we have 500k subscribers playing and doing warzones as a example.
F2P brings in 200k more users that can do 3 a week suggesting that none of them invest in the weekly pass.
Now let's say that only 100k of the F2P users compete in warzones.
How is 100k more users doing 3 warzones a week not adding more to the pot then only the current 500k subscribers? Even at only 3 per person a week that's 100k more war zone players for at least 3 warzones a week then we currently have. And also keep in mind that they haven't discussed how much it will cost for this stuff yet meaning that the weekly pass may only cost $1-$2 a week meaning monthly for those that only like to pvp it would cost the $4-$8 a month vs $15 being more cost effective for them. Now compared to the subscription that may seem like a rip off but if you only enjoy pvp and don't do the other stuff then for you it is better.

Humor this analogy if you will as it pertains to the purpose of weekly passes vs subscribers pass:
I call to order pizza and I only ever eat 1 pizza which cost $8 but if I get two pizza's it's only $12 making each pizza cost $6 instead of $8.
Obviously the two for $12 are a better deal but I only need one. So do I spend the extra $4 for the better deal even tho I won't eat the other pizza? Or do I save the $4 and just go for the one and leave nothing to waste?
(I'm hungry right now which is why I made a food analogy lol)

Anyway, the above analogy is the value of F2P vs subscription.
I personally love all aspects of the game, participate actively in all aspects and regularly, this making it a easy decision and most valuable for me to stay a subscriber.
Now if I only played casually for the stories and only participated in endgame PVE then I'd only invest in the flashpoint passes as needed (might only need to do three a week for the weekly) and the operation pass as needed based on raid schedule and save the extra few dollars a month, occasionally splurging on the cash shop of other neet stuff I may want and THAT is the business of F2P and how it becomes profitable for the company while still bringing value to the niche casual player. Hardcore players maintain their game and value with the subscription.

Anyway, that is my thoughts on the subject and overall I'm not concerned with F2P as it seems about right as of now, but I could change my mind once I see the cartel shop and how much things actually cost. If the items cost a rediculous amount of tokens then the value significantly drops for F2P users and subscribers will be saving MONTHS of cartel advances to purchase anything from the shop.

The single biggest factor according to BW is money. People thought BW was charging too much for what they were getting. If they start nickle and diming people it's going to be the EXACT SAME THING over again, instead of subs it's going to be interlaced systems and functions with hidden costs and poor interoperability.

Very well said. I am one of those 'quitters' myself: I played through a class story, found the endgame to be "not something I feel justified to spend money on", and left. I've recently picked up my sub because I wanted to level another toon (=experience another class story), but after that? I will probably unsub again. Simply because the end game itself (after the story is played though) isn't worth my money.

It's not about convenience for me. TOR has lots of it. It's about not being engaged in the world, having nothing 'meaningful' to etc. But that's another topic altogether ;-).

Time will tell if you're right about this, but I think if F2P fails it will be for other reasons than the convenience restrictions.

But getting back on the original issue I wanted to make sure my two cents were clear for anyone that wishes to counter them.

1) I think the current restrictions on F2P are fine for now. I would like to see expensive but permanent unlocks added in the future. The only issue is that I think it should be one character PER SERVER.

2) I think preferred accounts should get some alterations to the current setup, if it is F2P except what is listed at the top of the page. I think they should have 3 characters instead of one to unlock, they should have more FP and Warzones each week without paying for them (1 each a day would suffice IMO) and should not have any restrictions on items or features they have already acquired or unlocked. So if they have current purple gear or mods, they should be able to keep them.

3) I strongly suggest they add convenience items to the cash shop right away. Things like color changers for chest armor, free one use mod removal, speeder rentals, one use one character appearance change, character transfers, character renames, XP/Coin/Loot boosts, free revive, gear damage avoidance, etc. This would appeal to ALL players IMO.

@Ura...

#399...yes..agree pretty much 100%, was sure I said that, must have forgot to post it...my age :P

@Galba...

Lmao...umm..thanks...I think hehe