Is the F2P/Preffered system too prohibitive, and if so, what should change?

And my responses to yours.

To my knowledge preferred players do not get any perks when it comes to mail. They have the same restrictions that F2P players have, including the lack of the ability to mail between characters on their legacy. I could be wrong about this naturally, or perhaps this may have changed recently.

At any rate, I think that the judgement is a bit silly, since we are talking about encouraging F2P players to stay in the game long enough to become preferred and eventually subs, or at the very least spend ridiculous amounts of cash as preferred players like in other similar model games on the market. The drain on resources is the money wasted on the F2P system when it does not provide the growth the game needs IMO.

I have to disagree, that's called spam IMO, and spam that can discourage folks from playing the game. It is silly, IMO, to indicate this kind of annoying prompt is some kind of sale device. If anything it is more likely to be something that turns someone away from the title.

Again, I am not aware that preferred has their own chat feature other than using general, which they have with restrictions, and its a bit odd for you to speak of anti spam measures as positive, then promote spam from the game itself.

You have no information to my knowledge to base this judgement on other than perhaps your opinion, and therefore your point is no more or less valid than my own. I say three tiers have not worked well at all.

Ok, well, good. The idea of the suggestion is to improve the game, increase profit and sub numbers, not give away the game to freeloaders as some have suggested. Although, I think the prices for the items you mentioned are fine, but a legacy mail unlock should be much more expensive. I would place cost as the barrier to freeloaders instead of the lack of existence.

It has exactly the opposite effect IMO. Your post is well thought IMO, but IMO this contention is absolutely ridiculous.

Fair enough, but I can tell you from personal experience that it has had the opposite effect and a few companies have even recognized that and reversed the prior decision to keep them in the dark. So perhaps we have two different experiences in the market.

Also your "wanna talk" comment is more about entitlement IMO and less about game growth and vitality. This isn't politics, a religion or a life lesson. This is a vehicle of profit, fair doesn't even enter the equation. Any contention to the contrary is ludicrous IMO.

Or they can do like I say they probably have been doing and ignore the game to keep current subs happy while the game continues to suffer. This attitude is silly IMO and promotes an unhealthy environment for increasing game profits to appease a small group of elitists IMO.

In the VAST MAJORITY of free to play games on the market F2P players spend the lion's share of cash on the game compared to subs, in some games to the tune of 80/20 percent (average is not as stark, sitting around 60/40) where this game has subs paying the most.

I say that is indicative of the toxic state of the F2P system here. You turn F2P players off and they do not open their wallets...unless of course players here believe that they are unique among the market...which I think is complete folly.

I would also note that the same kind of silly comments were posed when the F2P first came out, and many changes were made despite community protestations. That was a wise move IMO, and more needs to be done.

And it seems that this idea is not something that Bioware completely opposes either.

Preferred can send mail but only get one attachment. I forget if they can send credits but I do remember somebody mentioning that COD works (The sender flags the message COD with an amount that if accepted debits the receiver's balance).

We all know the drill!

Yes, This thread is about what we think should CHANGE. The fact that you caused another thread to derail does not mean I cant stay on topic.
Non-subs AND subs get titles. We all know this. We also know that subs can get special titles that non subs can not. I fell that if I could change one thing, it would be to allow non subs the ability to use and display titles the earned.

Ah, yes, I am aware of that ability. Thank you for the heads up though.

Hehe. We sure do. I appreciate the discussion despite the fact that we do not agree on most points. You are certainly entitled to your views and you also could be completely correct naturally.

Fair enough. I certainly would not like to see something like legacy mail given away.

Ok, again, fair enough.

Not in this respect IMO. It acts more like repellant.

Actually the key difference is that not every free player talking on a chat box among themselves would likely be selling gold to other free players....but the game is DEFINITELY selling itself. You equate a chat system that is shared by free players as opportunity to sell gold, I say that is ludicrous....unless you think they could sell it to free players with no ability to receive it.

Just my slant.

I want to do more than keep the doors open. But fair enough.

IMO they lack the ability to understand how to do so it seems. GS stands in evidence of this. I am disappointing with it's participation levels, overall appeal to the current playerbase and performance, strictly my view. Time will tell with strongholds, which could represent what GS should have represented to increase appeal of this title, but I am skeptical at this point.

But yes, I agree that a more appealing product could have the same effect with the current restrictions in place, making any further changes unnecessary.

I would like to point out, however, that some studies have demonstrated that a F2P and/or hybrid model is far more profitable than a sub model. AND it generally has positive revenue growth that supports active development.

A few studies have concluded that any mass market game that spends more than 6 figures on development and operating costs can not be profitable unless it can garner 2 million or more subscriptions at 15 dollars a month or cut costs dramatically in the first 6 months on the market.

This game seems to have suffered that fate. It should have launched as F2P from the beginning IMO.

Sorry about that, I can be more clear in my responses so you can properly respond in the future. I can't argue with your own personal reasons that you subscribed, and that is as good a reason as any, certainly.

I am doing exactly that, but to be fair I have to disclose that many of the sources quoted in the past to support the idea that certain restrictions hurt implementation and appeal came from studies that one could say were biased toward the F2P model as profit vehicles in todays modern market....so there is that. I present an opinion that is obviously very pro F2P model to be clear...I do not see F2P players as a strain, I see them as a boon.

Both for this game and for it's future. The game was not good enough, it seems, at least under the prior dev team to garner enough interest from those that would pay each month for a sub, as the released numbers indicate.

Again, I apologize for that...I will find a way to provide the full quote to make it easier for you to properly respond.

The game is fortunate to have players. The game is fortunate to get paid money. Players are not fortunate to play. To suggest otherwise is silly IMO. I expect Bioware feels the same way considering this is a business, not a charity.

...which is why we have to get them spending money instead of walking away IMO. I use F2P to speak of the non-sub and the business model...I do not mean the small group of players that never pay anything.

So you do not consider Preferred players leeches then. Perhaps you misunderstood me.

Fair enough, abet obvious

Ok. I do and will continue to care. I think this game deserves better personally.

The ONLY thing I wish they changed was to either remove the credit limit, or raise it up to a million or something. It's such a pain in the butt to work around this arbitrary 350k credit limit. I get that there's escrow items, but if you don't stock up on them before your sub ends you are SOL.

I'm fine with everything else honestly. A distant 2nd is the lower exp gain if you are preferred or f2p. There just aren't enough quests to actually get you to 55 with the penalty. But if I had one wish, it would be to change the credit limit.

And they can.
By buying (or even being gifted by a friend) the unlock with in-game credits off the GTN.
It's not locked for them. It's just not available from start.

And don't accuse me of derailing a thread just because I corrected your statement. This thread isn't JUST about what we think should change, it's also about IF we think it is prohibitive. And I don't think the titles are prohibitive. They can easily buy them off the GTN for in-game cash and they don't have to spend a dime doing it.
I know I didn't when I went preferred for a few months.

Stupid forum boards. Lord, gonna reply paragraph by paragraph right here for ya, buddy. (Hey, maybe Bioware should change their forum platform to something a little more 21st century while we're at it...)

* I like a GOOD debate. This is a good one.

* Agreement achieved! No further discussion on Preferred mail needed, then, I'd say. (Unless something else comes up. I love agreements.)

* Again, my experience on whether or not people subscribe based solely on cash or lack thereof is anecdotal. But you're kind to call it "fair". (Frankly, I don't even know why I tried to use an anecdote.)

* In RE: nagvertising - It works. Do I agree with it? No. I hate most forms of advertising. To me, the product should stand on its own. Can it be done better or more responsibly? Probably. But would it be as effective as the drug dealer approach? (Give 'em a taste for free then charge, is how that works.) Probably not. What matters to EA right now is recouping its investment by any means necessary. They spent a LOT on this. Bioware did too.

* While not EVERY freep will engage in gold spamming, the fact remains that opening the door to them earlier and taking restrictions off of their chat will markedly increase such behavior. I wish it weren't the case, but we both know this to be a true and extremely likely scenario. Imagine how THAT would affect quality-of-play. It's just not worth it to make chat restriction-free for non-payers. At LEAST let's make these people buy something to spam.

* If you want to do more than keep the doors open on your favorite game, more power to you. I've been there before. But it's extremely thankless and non-profitable work. Please keep that in mind. (I'm sure you will, but what kinda guy would I be if I didn't say something about this facet?)

* If you want to show me some figures supporting your claim in regard to profit models, I'm willing to read it.

* You're not responsible for the fault of the forum software to populate multiquotes, but I appreciate your apologizing on their behalf (which is how I took it as, naturally, you are not to blame here).

* Now, I know we're meaning F2P in two different contexts, so let me be clear - those that DO NOT PAY ANYTHING AT ALL are the drains. They have no intention of supporting the game. They only intend to feed off of it. I can't respect that, but that's a personal issue.

* Two apologies and it wasn't even your fault! You're a good egg.

* Now, on this we may not agree. I strongly believe that those who do not pay anything to play here ARE fortunate to experience even the small taste they get. Again, this may be related to differing personal views.

* It's not as small a group as one might think, but none of us have hard numbers to tell us. (A world without secrets would be an amazing, informative world indeed!)

* Anyone who pays anything, even if it's just $5 over the span of a decade, supports the game. I have no qualms with anyone who supports the game. (I wouldn't even really have any qualms about the continued existence of freeps so long as there's no insistence that they be given anything more than what they're handed anyway.)

And finally:

* Again: Be careful how much you care about a game. Or anything that isn't strictly YOUR project. Investing oneself into another's project is noble, but often ends with a lot of grief for the knight who charges in. -bp

Does make it difficult to have a good point to point with someone. You have to edit your response yourself.

I agree, and you certainly raise good counter points, all the better.

Hehe. It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility for us to see eye to eye.

I call it fair because it is....most of our opinions, in mine, are based on personal experiences, and that really cant be argued....I really cant say YOU didnt have that experience. You are a better source of that information than I would be naturally, and that opinion therefore has just as much weight as any other IMO.

I don't suggest the removal of it entirely as the only option....perhaps a reduction. Every single addition to the pool is dinged...that means every mob you kill, every reward, EVERYTHING...and that, to me, is a bit much, and it seems to be a popular complaint across the net.

You might misunderstand my intent here. I do not intend to give free and preferred players the ability to openly chat on general...they already have restrictions in place, and frankly I would not have given them that much.

I am suggesting that they should have their own chat window they can use for themselves....in other words a chat that is only for free players and preferred. They can't sell gold to each other since they can't send gold....so I believe this would not effect subs at all.

Fair enough. My post history demonstrates my futile efforts in this respect quite clearly

I could do that. As I have indicated in the past, any internal studies we have paid for are heavilly redacted, however I can also post external studies and the sites that commercially provide them.

I just have to gather the information again or find my prior posts. I do not have the specifics in hand at this time.

Hey, yea, I forgot how nice multiquotes were for fostering a discussion.

Fair enough...I would pose only that they contribute warm bodies, but I have not read anything on folks that pay nothing...so I would have to say the contributions they make are perhaps speculative at best. The studies I have read are on folks that do not sub but pay for items and unlocks from a market.

Thanks.

Well, actually we do agree. Playing completely for free is a privilege, certainly. I contend that I am dealing with, or pointing to those that pay, even if it is just with purchases, and those folks are the ones I am making the suggestions for.

Bioware has released some information on free players, subs and the amount of money spent by who....but I do not have the exact quotes. I will look for them. I can also post some quotes from other games if needed. WoT (arguably the largest game on the market) has posted quite a bit in this respect. WoT IS the F2P business model used most often in studies I have found.

So it seems we may have more of a meeting of the minds than I first expected.

Well, all things end. What we do while those things exist define us IMO. This is me. But I have no illusions as to what will happen in the future...eventually this game, like all others, will close its doors.