If there's no PVE, then you could take your lvl 1 blah blah and head right to RVR.

"Haha.  You bitches pay $15 a month for your fancy cloaks!  But I killed you for free.  Yippee!"

I vote buy to play with vanity cash shop. Guild Wars 2 model is the best i've seen in any game and I think it should be adopted into any game thats worth its salt. I've spent roughly 60 dollars in the cash shop for myself and another 40 on my wife so A-net still gets good money out of me, the difference is I can pay it when I want to and if i can't pay, I can still play.

Also, the ability to turn in-game money into cash shop money is absolutly required for this to work without being P2W.

For the record to those that apparently didn't read the very first sentence and just hit the reply button, I said no cash shops and no digital cash. Fyi that makes it impossible to be a pay to win game.

Again for those saying $15, that is exactly the subscriber model I was refering to. You pay $15 a month, and you are a member. You get member benefits.

You let others play for free but they don't get member benefits and can be used to fix population problems. Because they don't pay you can tell them where to play.

And a sponsor/voucher system to ensure they aren't being cheating or gold farming dickwads.

I can't cliffnotes it anymore than that. At this point if you say pay to win again you're just being a troll.

Originally posted by Hokibukisa

For the record to those that apparently didn't read the very first sentence and just hit the reply button, I said no cash shops and no digital cash. Fyi that makes it impossible to be a pay to win game.

 

Again for those saying $15, that is exactly the subscriber model I was refering to. You pay $15 a month, and you are a member. You get member benefits.

 

You let others play for free but they don't get member benefits and can be used to fix population problems. Because they don't pay you can tell them where to play.

 

And a sponsor/voucher system to ensure they aren't being cheating or gold farming dickwads.

 

I can't cliffnotes it anymore than that. At this point if you say pay to win again you're just being a troll.

f2p need revenue in order to be free to play. Cash shops and in-game shops that use real cash do not have to be pay to win, as with Guild Wars 2, League of Legends, etc Wher ehte focus is not on paing money to get an upper hand or anyhting, but simply costmetic items or access to an item quicker (but sitll able to be gotten/earned through normal play).

Planetside 2 has a similar system in that regards.

I'm not sure I get your system, you bascally want to have it depend solely on pople subscribing, and those that don't subscribe you want to annoy/punish them and have their game be limited?

That's what SW:TOR tried at first, then they laxed up a bit on their restrictions for f2p players, and also went toward a cash shop as well.

It's entirely possible to have a cash shop and not be pay to win. Just don't offer anyything that gives stats or any benefits over other players. you could have weapon/armour skins and other cosmetic things that people WILL buy, and thus you get revenue from it. It's one of the easiest/cheapest ways to use a f2p model without pisisng off potential players, unlike the restrictive "You are f2p therefore you get less of the game" model that LOTRO and SW:TOR tried at first.

Originally posted by Hokibukisa

For the record to those that apparently didn't read the very first sentence and just hit the reply button, I said no cash shops and no digital cash. Fyi that makes it impossible to be a pay to win game.

 

Again for those saying $15, that is exactly the subscriber model I was refering to. You pay $15 a month, and you are a member. You get member benefits.

 

You let others play for free but they don't get member benefits and can be used to fix population problems. Because they don't pay you can tell them where to play.

 

And a sponsor/voucher system to ensure they aren't being cheating or gold farming dickwads.

 

I can't cliffnotes it anymore than that. At this point if you say pay to win again you're just being a troll.

They aren't aiming for a huge player base but for a niche crowed. Also, if the is f2p it would have a huge influx of players who would play it for nothing and who is going to pay for all that bandwidth? It's better to just have a small dedicated player base and being p2p than going f2p :P.  And also those benefits you talk about giving members are worthless in a pvp game once people get to max level.

It amuses me when people start talking about advantages and disadvantages of P2P vs F2P. Advent of F2P is simply the result of game companies trying to undercut each other while they attempt to sell you their version of World of Warcraft. The MMO market is oversaturated with clones that target the same audience, and F2P/B2P are a business necessity that helps some of these half-baked ventures stay afloat. For a game that is not competing with WoW and is creating its own market, there is no practical reason to go F2P. The new market/audience in question are the hardcore RVR fans, and as long as Camelot Unchained is the only game in that niche they can freely charge a premium for their product.

Originally posted by Hokibukisa

For the record to those that apparently didn't read the very first sentence and just hit the reply button, I said no cash shops and no digital cash. Fyi that makes it impossible to be a pay to win game.

 

Again for those saying $15, that is exactly the subscriber model I was refering to. You pay $15 a month, and you are a member. You get member benefits.

 

You let others play for free but they don't get member benefits and can be used to fix population problems. Because they don't pay you can tell them where to play.

 

And a sponsor/voucher system to ensure they aren't being cheating or gold farming dickwads.

 

I can't cliffnotes it anymore than that. At this point if you say pay to win again you're just being a troll.

 Answer this fair question:  Why the posturing about being a whale in the original post? 

Im all for free to play as it does draw in the numbers, cant say im a fan of most F2P games with the tackiness of cash shops, but what would the benefit be to subscribing then?

Originally posted by Benezetta
Free to play = Free to harass other players and just generally act like a turdbutt.  No thanks. 

That is my new favorite word for my 18 year old son. I totally agree though, subs will weed out the riffraff who think there sole mission in life is to troll a game they have no interest in and abuse other players.

Originally posted by Tayah
No thanks. I despise F2P and B2P games, they scream "our game isn't worthy of a subscription", they're all garbage.

you win most ridiculous post of the day, here have a cookie

 I would be less likely to play if it goes F2P.

Just sayin

This game needs a stable community. Free To Play games could never provide that. They didn't in the past and they won't in the future since many F2P games are "just passing by".

One more problem with Free To Play in Camelot Unchained would be "realmpride" since you could create infinite accounts and play different realms on the same server which would be one more step towards unstable community.

Pay To Play is the way for a good and stable community. Even if its small.

I don't understand so many people on these forums, free to play is pay to win! And we all know that that's not true, if we look at for example: League of Legends, that's a free to play game with a cash shop, and that is definitely not pay to win.

And about the "free to play are just games that passes by and doesn't have a good community" Then Bitch Please! league of Legends is free to play and have you seen it's community? fanart? and do you know how long league of legends has been around? (And that is just an example, look at gw2 with the b2p model and so on)

Some developers have proven that they can remain profitable by releasing a B2P or F2P game, while only offering cosmetics and the like in their cash shop. However, the problem they haven't solved is the revolving door being free creates of the games population. People are just cycling in and out of the game, leaving the dedicated players with no idea who they can rely and depend on in game. MMORPG's need committed members in order to thrive. They need members that are dedicated to the game and its community. Having a subscription as a barrier to entry not only funds future development, but forces the player to commit to playing that game for x amount of time. 

Personally, I'd like to see them charge between $5-$10 dollars a month to support their team and pay for their expenses, and just charge us for content patches. Yet I have no idea what would constitue content in a game where there's no PvE at all.