Implementing both F2P/Sub is also an option

[Vespar]

Ugh, when will people stop contemplating this? SE chose the method that will work for them to keep this game going and updated, if you don't like paying for it, then play another game. Simple as that.

[Swishytail]

Hypothetically, let's pretend that anyone could buy i100 gear with real money. Now, since you said you make good money, lets pretend that you decide to buy a full set of i100 gear. I decide that I can't afford it and so I decide to get i100 gear by farming tomes over the course of a few weeks. Am I at a disadvantage? Is there content that you can do that I cannot? Does you having i100 on April 3rd alter my ability to play the game and enjoy it? Does me having i100 on June 7th alter your ability to play the game and enjoy it? There already exist players that get different sets of gear at different times, I don't understand how this is any different.

You think there's toxic/elitist attitude now?

Wait until all the Call of Duty rich kids get their parents to buy them a full set of iLvl 100 armor and
they do nothing but spit in your face all day/flaunt/brag about it. I'd rather not play a game where
any 13-year-old with rich parents can do -literally- nothing but swipe a credit card and have everything
at the drop of a hat. That breeds nothing but bad. =/

Ugh, when will people stop contemplating this? SE chose the method that will work for them to keep this game going and updated, if you don't like paying for it, then play another game. Simple as that.

This pretty much sums it up for me. If this game ever took the route of F2P or offering gear/weapons in a cash shop, I'd simply walk away.

[Kilyua]

Please SE, don't kill this game. NO F2P. It will bring nothing good.

[Pylfer]

Vanity would be $0.99-$4.99 a cube depending on level. That would be interesting... Also vanity would now give +2-10 extra stats ON TOP of the base gears stats.

Our inventories would be one page BUT you can pay $9.99 for another page. You can pay $5.99 for better gathering chance OR $15.99 for a bundle of high teir HQ gathering/farming items (items10 stcks a piece).

Drop rates for items would be lowered but you can pay $6.99 for better rates.

$12.99 will give you better atma drops.

Upgrading to +10 equipment will be a thing. 4+ will have extremely high chances of breaking your gear permenently though. BUT $4.99 will make your gear not break for 5 tries.

[Rosy]

Hey Everybody,

I was looking over some FF news on reddit this morning and came across a presentation that Yoshida did not long ago.

.........snip

That said, I know as of right now F2P is out of the picture but how do you guys feel about the potential of F2P in FFXIV?

Personally I spent a lot of time and effort playing Rift when Trion claimed it would never go F2P and then prior to it happening they laid off a large number of their good devs, including the dev lead, and the game went to complete and total shit (in my opinion).

....snip

I played Rift for a year before it was released as I was in Alpha. I loved that game, I loved the devs, I gave it a chance when it went ftp, but left soon after with over 6 months of sub left. I really, really hope FFXIV doesn't go ftp, because then I'll have to find another subscription model game to play.

Why on earth has my avatar changed...I'm a Lalafell !!!

[DoctorPepper]

I am of mixed feelings on this front. What advantage do you really have in a PVE environment?

I can see what you're saying and the honest answer is that the only advantage they get over you personally is time. I have to agree with you from one perspective because I play these games for fun and if it takes a few weeks to get something I enjoy doing it.

On the other hand, for competitive players that put a lot of effort into something, it's an insult and begins to feel like a waste of time if somebody can just go to the cash shop and buy that item you just spent days/weeks obtaining for $10, especially if you're a player that can't actually use the cash shop due to financial reasons.

All the cash shop does is add another layer of segregation between the rich and the poor, it basically says to the players that "it doesn't matter how much time/effort you put into the game as long as you're rich in real life" and I think the last thing we need is more disparity between the rich and the poor, especially in games which are supposed to be fun, but that's my opinion.

[Pibz]

In the presentation/interview, he was basically answering questions of "What do you think about F2P?" Meaning he is giving his opinion on F2P. His opinion is, F2P isn't out of the question, depends if the "money is there" and " If the masses want such a thing".

As of right now, they are making too much money off of P2P and, most people don't want this game to go F2P in terms of how the forums are reacting to it. The forums are also their only source of information of statistics about this.

The end results as of this moment is, P2P is here to stay.

Basically this, i don't see how so many people fail to understand it.
It's a game developers conference he's there to give a talk/lecture to share his experience/opinions on MMO development, not to give insight into the future payment model of his game..

[DoctorPepper]

Basically this, i don't see how so many people fail to understand it.
It's a game developers conference he's there to give a talk/lecture to share his experience/opinions on MMO development, not to give insight into the future payment model of his game..

I can't agree with this, you're basically saying that people shouldn't worry about the head honcho saying that F2P is not out of the picture and that models where subscriptions and F2P work together are an option for this game.

If Yoshida says it's an option then it's an option they're considering. I'm sorry but last time I checked he calls the shots, not the people who think they can tell the future on these forums. If F2P is a potential option for the future of FFXIV I think it's something worth discussing. Whether you agree or not is really just your opinion but other people seem to be equally concerned. Nobody is failing to understand anything, it's just you guys failing to see why people are concerned, we're all well aware this isn't going to happen any time soon.

[TheRogueX]

This right here. Patches would definitely not happen every 3 months anymore, it's impossible to budget on a F2P and make
any kind of road map. You don't know if you are going to have to fire staff or cut back on resources month-to-month.

Wouldn't be a fun time if that had to happen, you're looking at possible 6-8 months for 1 patch if not enough people play.

I know of three games off the top of my head that prove you wrong:

Lord of the Rings Online (hybrid F2P/Subscription model)
Champions Online (hybrid F2P/Subscription model)
Star Trek Online (hybrid F2P/Subscription model)

LotRO has had 4 FULL-SIZED expansions since it went F2P and numerous smaller free patches in between.
Star Trek Online gets new Seasons with new content constantly (it also recently got a full-sized expansion with an entirely new faction and restructuring of the original two factions), and Champions Online gets new 'Issues' with new content.

Oh, and I just thought of a fourth: The Secret World.

You can have a F2P game that doesn't sell actual gear in its market. Cosmetics, new mounts, collectible items, etc can still make a crapton of money.

[L-D-Omlette]

Snip

This brings up another thing I don't understand. Why do people feel the need to brag about stuff they have, or can do in a game. If people in my FC or friends list accomplish a goal they have, I am happy for them, but that's only because I have a personal connection to them. I don't understand this need to "show off" in a digital world, or the real world for that matter.

Also, why should I give any weight to what a bunch of brats think? I don't play with a-holes now, why would I in that environment?

Snip

I want to be clear that I am not hoping that this game moves to that model, but I am interested in the discussion.

I agree that creating a disparity between player groups is a bad thing. I imagine if someone took these things into account at the onset of development they could implement some interesting counter measures.

I can't really speak to the competitive aspect, but if I were into that sort of gameplay, I suspect I would either redefine the rules of engagement, or not place myself into something that wasn't a fair playing field. One wouldn't play basketball w/ baseball rules w/o changing the game

Granted that couldn't apply if the model were to change suddenly, to which I could understand the frustration.