We've discussed the possibility of a free-to-play Star Wars: The Old Republic in the past, but what would the switchover look like? We weigh in with this week's SWTOR column.

Heck, even the social gear feature could give way to a variety of purchasable social clothing outfits for the more fashion conscious players out there. Companion kits and perhaps even companion specific social gear would fit right in, too. I’d be iffy on color crystals, however. Color crystals sort of fall into an interesting grey area of representing player achievement while also being something that could be considered a simple customization option (ignoring stats, of course).

Read more of Michael Bitton's Star Wars: The Old Republic: What Would F2P Look Like?

I'm not sure EA/BioWare will go F2P. In the past they've had their shot with TCoS that they acquired through Acclaim. It would go F2P, was sold off to Frogster Korea to make F2P and we all know what happened after that :( Personally I think EA would rather take the servers off-line when figures drop too low rather than take the jump to F2P - way too risky for EA-financials. Keep in mind EA mostly looks at REAL profit (from monthly subscription) and not POSSIBLE profit (from F2P)...

I would really like a f2p version. Come to think of it - is there any news about the infinite up to level 15 trial?

I would really like to play some huttball now.

This picture made me thinking about:

What IF "free players" had a different race, then all the other players? Would it impact the community and the game? Wonder if that would lead to "in-game racism" or something.....brrgh!

And for the topic: Yes! Give us a F2P SWTOR! :)

Buy it once with a cash shop for flairs and such like GW2. Sure count me in.

It would be exspensive, done badly and would be trying very hard to take as much money from a customer as possible.

EA are behind it, did you think it would be anything else?

Originally posted by sladden27

This picture made me thinking about:

 

What IF "free players" had a different race, then all the other players? Would it impact the community and the game? Wonder if that would lead to "in-game racism" or something.....brrgh!

 

And for the topic: Yes! Give us a F2P SWTOR! :)

Make it so the only race available to F2P players is Ewok.. :)

If SWTOR went F2P I think it would make the EQ2 and Vanguard matrices seem consumer-friendly by comparison.  The game would likely be nearly useless without some kind of significant monetary investment.  My guess is it wouldn't be a Cash Shop-based F2P but a gated subscription-based F2P.  They would just use F2P as a lure to get people in to try to get more subs.

Limited races, classes, advanced classes, or maybe even talent trees.  No bags.  No GTN use.  No chat.  Limited bank space.  Limited character slots.  No warzones or flashpoints.  No guilds.  Gear restrictions.  Possibly even limited companions.  My guess is that anything that could be limited would be limited in order to drive players to sub.

Like a girl that looks ugly when you're drunk. Then you wake up sober and she's still ugly, maybe more or less than the night before.

It would most likely turn into a cash hound;

Inventory space

Vanity and functional weapons and armor

dungeons

vanity pets

vehicles

Increased XP

Specific classes

All of the above, the coolest looking ones too, for sale in the cash shop.

Exactly the same as it does now, just with a cash shop thrown on top.

Why people think a game is worth their time if it isn't worth their money I will never know.

Originally posted by Vesavius

Exactly the same as it does now, just with a cash shop thrown on top.

Why people think a game is worth their time if it isn't worth their money I will never know.

they dont believe in goblins

lol this site and it's writers are obsessed with this game going F2P and F2P in general.

They crushed Warhammer into the ground and refused to go F2P.   Why would you think they'd do anything to rescue SWTOR?

After all, this is a company that clearly can't learn from it's own mistakes:

http://www.alteredgamer.com/warhammer-online/44427-what-went-wrong-with-is-it-a-failure/?cid=parsely_rec

If it goes free to play, I hope it's not like the Sony games.

we dont want it to be f2p because then it would be a pay to win game an it would suck look what f2p did to star trek online it sucks to play now look at lotro that sucks too all im saying is F2P theres a pattern here an its not for the best.

AGAIN F2P BAD IDEA DONT DO IT BIOWARE ITS NOT WORTH IT, i dont see it happening myself theres loads of content lined up for years down the line its £9-$15 its cheap for what your getting

f2p isnt for this game dont care what anyone else says you go f2p an you will kill the game

Originally posted by blackravenuk

we dont want it to be f2p because then it would be a pay to win game an it would suck look what f2p did to star trek online it sucks to play now look at lotro that sucks too all im saying is F2P theres a pattern here an its not for the best.

AGAIN F2P BAD IDEA DONT DO IT BIOWARE ITS NOT WORTH IT, i dont see it happening myself theres loads of content lined up for years down the line its £9-$15 its cheap for what your getting

 

f2p isnt for this game dont care what anyone else says you go f2p an you will kill the game

Um....hate to break it to you....

Originally posted by RoyalPhunk

lol this site and it's writers are obsessed with this game going F2P and F2P in general.

As is, seemingly, every 'neutral' gaming site on the internet it seems.

This one even runs and promotes a free to play shill column, The Free Zone. Where is the balancing column talking about alternatives? Where is the critical analysis of the model? It's just promote, promote, promote.

You only actually see any real crtical thought on on the subject in amateur blogs and on forums, I haven't seen one 'official' editorial or other piece honestly looking at the pros and cons, or asking the hard questions (the impact the model has on gameplay design, communities, or who really pays and how much).

All I see is the push towards the pure profit revenue of F2P and the promotion of the illusion it relies on to work.

I have a feeling that the people being looked out for are probably not the end user customer, or games in general.

Originally posted by Harttz

...

 Limited races, classes, advanced classes, or maybe even talent trees.  No bags.  No GTN use.  No chat.  Limited bank space.  Limited character slots.  No warzones or flashpoints.  No guilds.  Gear restrictions.  Possibly even limited companions.  My guess is that anything that could be limited would be limited in order to drive players to sub.

And what is wrong with those limitations. The only problem with F2P are the players who insist that everything be free, and equal to those who pay to play. Games are made to make money for those who make them. Food ain’t free to eat, clothes aren’t free to wear, cars are not free to drive. Why do gamers think that games should be free to play?

If a game lets you play to max level using only normal or maybe uncommon gear, then you should be grateful. And STFU about those players, who pay for your play time, getting to use rare and epic gear and items. When you start paying, then you get to be the bad Hero for that day.

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by RoyalPhunk

lol this site and it's writers are obsessed with this game going F2P and F2P in general.

 

As is, seemingly, every 'neutral' gaming site on the internet it seems.

This one even runs and promotes a free to play shill column, The Free Zone. Where is the balancing column talking about alternatives? Where is the critical analysis of the model? It's just promote, promote, promote.

 

You only actually see any real crtical thought on on the subject in amateur blogs and on forums, I haven't seen one 'official' editorial or other piece honestly looking at the pros and cons, or asking the hard questions (the impact the model has on gameplay design, communities, or who really pays and how much).

All I see is the push towards the pure profit revenue of F2P and the promotion of the illusion it relies on to work.

 

I have a feeling that the people being looked out for are probably not the end user customer, or games in general.

 

 

The problem is that these days, that doesn't seem to be the case with either model, especially P2P. So many big AAA P2P games come along withtiny amounts of content and huge amounts of ground and very little innovation. Most F2P games are just generally sub-par. It seems that on both sides of the court, the customer gets shafted.

However, I still prefer the F2P model. While in many of them, the "illusion of choice" is complete bollocks, there are a few where the model is held up quite efficiently.

Edit: Also, "pure profit revenue?" Lol. They have *just as many costs to uphold as a P2P game, so that's kind of a ridiculous claim there.