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

As a sub I feel like F2P is not prohibitive enough. Some of the legacy perks should have been instantly available to subs and should only need to be unlocked by.

Quick travel for example should have the reduced cooldown immediately rather than be unlockable.

I'm speaking as a very new sub (not even hit the 2 month mark yet) who has a friend who is F2P and its made almost no difference at all to levelling speeds (im marginally higher than him right now). Perhaps at 55 it'll change? I'm not sure, but they should be selling the benefits of subbing not to just level 55s but to lower levels as well since thats where new subs start.

I'm not producing much of an alternative here I know but I feel like subbing is just a bit of a rip-off compared to F2P. They don't need to change too much but for me the key benefit of subbing vs F2P should always be convenience, I should never feel restricted from reaching content immediately (i.e. being slowed down by travel skill cooldowns).

I spend 13 hours working/ travelling to work 5 days a week (not complaining about that of course) and I would prefer to get a little more reward for the cash I spend - or I'm happy to see those playing for free 'punished' a little more. Let the flames begin!

Yes indeed. You meet always two kind of people playing MMOs. But they don't need to fight.
Look at this new concept developed by... hmmm... I don't want to advertise : CREDD. Make your own opinion.

Nice.

OK, I get it. You're saying the exact opposite of what so many complain about. You're saying that the Preferred and F2P restrictions are so laughable as to not be restrictions at all. The game's perfectly good with them in place.

I'll take that answer. It's a good one.

Me, I pay my $15 per month because I get entertainment value from the game and I want the game to keep existing and keep growing, and revenue is the only way that's going to happen. I believe in offering compensation when a person or business offers me something of value, just as I believe that I should receive compensation when I offer a business (usually my employer) something of value.

I am a subscriber and plan to stay that way. I think the game is more than worth $15 / month.

Recently I tried to get a few of my relatives that play WoW to switch over. They tried for a few days using the F2P access to see if they would be interested in the game. All quit saying the F2P model was slimy and money grubbing.

These are people that pay monthly to play WoW. They are not adverse to paying a subscription to play an MMO. But the F2P system as it is so pathetic with its ridiculous restrictions like not being able to hide your helm unless you pay that I feel it is turning players off to the game rather than encouraging them to subscribe.

I understand that EA wants to encourage subscriptions and only went with a F2P model because the original released failed miserably, but there has to be a way to make the F2P game seem less petty.

I'd wager that you're missing something. Leveling as a sub is laughably easy thanks to the "rest XP" mechanic. I avoid mobs whenever possible, skip some bonus quests, and scarcely do dailies, but I'm still over-leveled on every planet I hit by at least 2 levels.

This is more or less my take as well. It's not that I want the experience of free-to-play gamers to be on par with subscribers, but as it stands I think it's too much of an ultimatum. The game might as well tell you to "sub or leave".

My problem with that isn't even that there will be less f2p users around, but less players in general, some of whom could be potential subbers should they enjoy their initial trial of the game (maybe halt the spam, etc. until lvl 20 or so?)

DarthTHC, you keep using that word "perfectly." I do not think it means what you think it means!

It's not 'perfectly' fine, but it's totally manageable.The restrictions are petty, with all the good and bad that comes with that.

If I had to change one thing... hmm. Early Bounty Hunter quest on Nal Hutta. You meet with the Hutt, and get your pay (for bein' a gorram bounty hunter) from his receptionist afterward. Quest reward is a credit box. F2P can't get credit boxes as quest rewards.

For me, who is used to that sort of thing, this is hilarious. It's really obvious they just didn't notice the interaction.

For an actual new player, they are level 3. They have been at the game for maybe half an hour, and they get the message, "sorry bounty hunter, to get your pay for hunting bounties, you have to subscribe to the game!" First impressions are super important, and it's a huge 'screw you' like none other, right inside the first hour. I'd guess it's individually responsible for driving away scores of new players.

Nothing big, just change the quest reward.

But it's still not a perk. That's like saying that being able to go to a body-shop and have your car repainted from blue to red is a perk. It's a service you pay for, just like the appearance designer. Being able to run at level 1 as opposed to level 10 is a perk. Getting ranks in piloting 5-10 levels sooner is a perk. Being able to pay to change your hair colour is not.

So my valid and true statement is "silly", as opposed to your statement which I have shown to be false? I guess that's pretty indicative of who actually did their homework.

I am using the literal definition from Google, Websters, Dictionary.com, etc. The fact that you want to ignore such a definition and make up your own (such as"having a red car instead of a blue car is a perk even though they're the exact same in every way!") makes me highly suspicious of your intent and logical capabilities.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Sure, you could buy xp boosts (a perk, albeit temporary) from the CM to use for yourself... but you already inherently have the equivalent of said boosts enabled at all times as a Sub (plus Rest XP on top of that - another inherent perk).

You mean YOU don't appreciate my input. Please, if you're going to make a statement, you should at the very least verify its integrity before doing so. I'm certain you haven't gone around and PM'd every single person still involved here about their stance on my input. I find your veracity to be superfluous at best.

i recently started a second account to try out the f2p system and the onlything that really got me anoyed was the inability to talk to people on starting planets.

I know this is a way to try and stop the gold spammers, but its a bad one, after all, there is alot of new people that never tryed MMO before that wants to see if its something they would like.

But at the moment the starting planets are more or less solo planets for f2p people, since you cant group up with people, other then sending the "rude" invites without speaking to them.

You see people wanting to do same heroics as you and cant send them a wisper

Bad bad, afterall this IS an MMO, you shouldnt take away the ONE thing that makes it different to any other single player game, the ability to actually talk to others from start!

my 2 cents

We are arguing here over the definition of a word. That IMO is the very definition of silliness. This is the definition I am using, which is naturally only one of many.......

Perk - a good thing that you have or get because of your situation.
a. an added bonus, an item added that has value.
b. a benefit or advantage that you get from a situation.

We were not originally able to change our appearance after creation. It was designed specifically to be permanent according to the original devs (cant remember the link or quote, it is located in the ETA on AC change thread). The new dev team seems to have decided against this view and offered it to all players. But they had to pay with coins to use it.

It is now a perk of playing the game...you can change your appearance post creation. That is perhaps valuable to some folks, myself included. There are games on the market that do not allow this.

If you do not believe that the appearance designer qualifies as a perk, then so be it. I don't see that as an unreasonable view.

It was one of many examples of things that have been added to the game that both subs and freeps have to pay for if they desire them. The CM is filled with these items, Legacy is filled with these items, IMO arguing over this one particular items definition is simply silly at best. After all, you are correct...it does not fit a few of the definitions of perk. But it does fit one IMO....IN MY OPINION, which in the end means next to nothing naturally.

In other words, my opinion should not be so important to you so that you desire to argue the semantics over and over again on such a narrow interpretation of the issue.

I'll tell you what. I will simply offer my apologies If I offended you, point out you have made your opinion clear to me and I accept it, and leave it at that.

Hopefully then the discussion can continue and this foolish back and forth can end. I hope to see further contributions to this discussion and the forum in general from you in the future.

If that does not satisfy you, let me know what will and I will endeavor to provide it.