Originally Posted by Randactyl
I would argue this is just a different way of skinning the same cat. Using the same parameters it could be said that the traditional subscription model is pay to win in the first place since you are having to pay extra to play (and win) the game you have already bought.
I don't think this sentiment is often expressed because one, it is a decades old practice, and two, someone is probably more likely to go along with something if they don't feel they have a choice.
Switching to a buy to play model with optional subscription introduces another choice and causes customers to make a more complicated decision. Some will feel no sub is better for them, while other feel a sub is better and others still may be torn between the two unable to make a decision. And in the current culture of the internet where every poster is right and all others are literally Hitler, this creates unnecessary contention.
|
Ok I do have one question, name one F2P, P2W, Pay to Level, or any other model that someone has gotten it right?
I think your player base cares the most when they have a subscription.
I mean fine - sell pets, and costumes but this isn't looking that innocent.
-d
ps I have a long history with this I started with UO and hung in there until the "Ninja" expansion!!! I played WoW and hung in there until the "Panda" expansion and I played Rift until almost anything good you have to pay for one way or another -- so ESO is my Fav of all time so far in game play and play style but I think they have made some bad choices. Why not make 1 mega sever and let the rest of the team work on content?