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

Make them wash your car. Give them each $5 for doing it. BOOM problem solved. They start learning that money has to be earned and they can become preferred.

we argued about this before.

if real life jobs were like video game ones, yes, your argument would stand. however - real life jobs are neither guaranteed, nor they are easy to find. and don't pay nearly as well as dailies do. overtime is not just given to you when you need to cover unforeseen expenses. and budgets can get pretty damn tight at times, and sometimes you just need that something you can relax with and get lost in, that doesn't cost you anything extra. computer and internet connection is no longer something out of the ordinary anymore. at this point - its a necessity for most people. after all... walking down the street asking for work like in the olden days >_> can only get you so far.

do you also dislike people who "chose" not to pay for books and movies becasue they cannot afford to buy them, and instead check them out at the library instead? oh who am I kidding, you probably do, how dare they.

its hilarious to me, becasue your attitude goes directly against the fact that this game is hybrid model. and it comes with ability to play it without a monthly fee. but.. I should stop now, arguing with you about this subject is pointless. and your signature remains as ironic as ever :P

If they are totally incapable of finding $5 but have reasonably functioning bodies and minds, send them to my place. I'll give them $20 to wash my truck. I'll even supply all the materials. They can both become preferred and grab a meal at McDonald's.

Nope. That's what the library is there for. It's funded by tax dollars and/or donations so that people can educate themselves and get jobs so they can be contributing members of society instead of leeches.

Yes, the game is a hybrid model. Yes, people can play for free for as long as they like within the restrictions the developers put on it. They can lift some restrictions by paying $5 once.

If that's what the developers want, that's fine. However, when the leeches start complaining that they're not able to suck enough blood, that's where the problem lies. And when the leeches do things that make the game less enjoyable for paying customers - as the credit spammers are doing - then the game should be tweaked so the leeches can be a bit less annoying.

Back to the original topic, no, F2P is not too restrictive, especially since a lot of restrictions can be lifted with a single $5 purchase. Anyone who simply (and honestly) cannot afford to spend $5 once on a game they say the enjoy playing should be damned glad they have a computer and internet connection, plus the time, plus the generosity of developers and paying customers alike, so they can have the chance to play this great game for free... and stop complaining.

On topic...

Yes it is. My son plays quite a few MMOs, all F2P. SWTOR is the one game him and his friends avoid because it's far too restrictive. Every MMO they've played he has spent $ on at some point (minus some Korean one), but SWTOR isn't even on their list because of the F2P policy.

but one time $5 is not the same as continuous purchases of $15 a month yes? more over. exactly how would adding more purchasable (and then sellable for credits) unlocks would ruin it for the subscribers and encourage gold spammers? creating a system that allows people to bypass credit sellers in order to exchange money for real game currency - directly discourages credit sellers. the more extensive you make that system, the less worth it becasue for credit sellers to try and hock their wares. and ability to buy (and then resell on GTN) blocks of subscription time? will actualy create more subscribers.

or that doesn't count? each player has to pay their own, real life money, or they count as a leech? moreover. say what you will about f2p players, but at least they provide extra warm bodies, more people to play with. the fuller the population of the MMO looks, the more people tend to be actualy interested in playing it. but push f2p population away too much and ..... population shrinks, fewer people want to play and as a result - fewer people want to pay.

I'm not saying that f2p should get full and unrestricted access to everything. I'm a big BIG supporter of things like hide head slot and unify colors unlocks as well as crew skill and mail restriction (the part where you can mail just one rather than 8). I'm also a big supporter of section x like unlocks - unlimited access to subscribers, has to be separately purchased by someone who is not.

I'm saying that looking down on people who are not subscribers and thinking their playtime SHOULD be as uncomfortable as possible , it SHOULD be a stick more so than the carrot approach to their playing - is counterproductive. and sneering at preferred players especially? is just.. sad. becasue even libraries encourage you to suggest which books you would like for them to buy for their collection. even if you never EVER personally given them a dime.

P.S. restriction on trading items hurts everyone. its that very restriction that makes your so-called leeches? MORE annoying. yes it can be lifted with $5, but who are we really punishing here? "leeches"? or paying customers?

It was certainly better conceived than that fallacy-ridden yarn about the pack of hipsters trying to score free beer.

It really doesn't. Property upkeep and maintenance is standard boiler plate for any rental agreement. In many states, it's even law.

For a lot (most) renters is the whole point of renting over owning. They get to live in a nice house without having to deal with the headaches of being a homeowner. Some people are even willing to pay higher rent than they would the monthly rate on a 30-year for a comparable house in the same neighborhood. There's a crack in the stucco? Call the landlord. Leaky roof? Call the landlord. The toilet explodes? Call the landlord. This is all quality of life stuff that people expect out of their lease. But they have deal with it (pay for it) if they own the home themselves.

That's what a sub is; it's a lease. You rent the game for $15 a month.

Likewise, some landlords who're looking to dump properties, will offer the renter the option to buy the home when the lease is up. Some will even negotiate with the lender to retroactively apply part of the lease to the mortgage.

This is pretty much what it means to go preferred. You get to keep some stuff and any CCs you've accumulated, but all the quality of life "maintenance" is on you now. However, you can take some of that money you save from the lower mortgage costs and fix the stucco yourself. (Or buy your quickbars.)

If you leased long enough, that retroactive savings (CCs.) might be enough to fix everything yourself, and you won't have to worry about it.

The caveat here, of course, is weekly passes. But think of those as property tax.

Which brings up the point you seem to have a problem with false equivalency. You complained up-thread about spending money and the $240 you've spent on other games, but wouldn't do it here blah blah blah.

Yet you seem to think that that $240 has a different value when you sub. It doesn't. For $240 you could sub for a year and a half. When the sub was over, you'd have accumulated more than enough CCs to buy all the unlocks, stock up on enough weekly passes to affordably maintain a critical mass of them and keep you in business for a long while, and still have enough left over for a little vanity.

Never mind the fact you just spent the last year and a half playing the game headache free.

I don't know if this is intentional or not, but it's a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

Ah, I see now. Well, first, all the melodrama was not necessary, since it is pretty obvious you either misunderstand what the sentence means, or you intend to change its meaning to fit your agenda, whatever that may be.

The statement is absolutely correct. It most certainly is not even close to "false".

So, to the first.....

Name one perk. Appearance Kiosk.

Now on to my statement.

Yea, I have to say, though certainly subs get quite a few perks, they still have to pay for most of the perks that F2P and Preferred can and do purchase.

....means exactly what it says. There are no hidden meanings, the text is plain and it's meaning is plain, But I will, for the sake of discussion, clarify if it is confusing.

1) Subs get quite a few perks for subscribing that F2P/Preferred do not get, no matter how much they unlock or pay for.

2) Subs are still required to pay money for certain perks, despite being subs. I can give examples if you wish, if this part still confuses you. The operative words in the statement are "can" and "do", not "have to".

3) To further clarify #2, there are perks that F2P and Preferred purchase in the game that Subs also have to pay for IF THEY WANT THEM. The automatic payment of coins for subs helps, and a person could wait quite a few months to afford to purchase items, but essentially a sub does not get those items or perks for free in most cases. All three could buy certain perks and items on the GTN when and if they come available.

In that statement I did not:

State that subs had to pay for things they needed to play
State that F2P or Preferred did not have to pay for things they needed to play.
State that subs are getting a bad deal compared to F2P/Preferred.

You either did not understand my statement (which I thought was pretty clear, perhaps not) or you chose to make it mean something it did not to somehow further your overall argument.

BTW...I am the OP. Perhaps you were not aware that I am an advocate of lessening some of the more draconian features in the F2P system. I find it rather odd that you would decide to focus your vitriol on me considering I started the topic in the first place.

Ready, shoot, aim and all that. Pay attention.

Hopefully in the future you can dispense with the drama and simply ask me what I meant if you are confused about one of my statements.

Just mail it to them.

So, again, as the topic seemed to get of the rails with the amount of hyperbole running around....

I propose that there are a few elements of the F2P that actually discourage folks from becoming paying players.

Those restrictions and nags....namely the following....

Lack of ability to unlock legacy mail
Credit escrow message spam with sound for every single credit above the cap
Lack of ability for free and preferred players to chat among themselves

....seem to be the largest complaints web wide right now, and I see them as nothing more than punishment.

I believe all three need to be addressed.

One of the few things to change I would look at, is the current f2p limits on flashpoint rolls and warzone particpation. If EA is making a killing on selling flashpoint and warzone passes, then their business model is working as intended. However, if sales of these passes are low, EA should look at lifting these limits, since these limits contribute to longer waits on flashpoint and warzone queues.