A traditional subscription model would be a death sentence, as shown by practically every other high profile MMOs that launched the same way the last 4 years. At the very least they need to offer multiple options on how you want to pay for the game. I think games like Everquest 2 and others that eventually made the switch to f2p offer alternative payment methods that are basically the same as monthly subscriptions.

I really enjoy the PvP aspect of World of Warcraft, but I don't feel it is worth the monthly fee they are charging, since most of that money appears to fund other content instead which I have no interest in. I suspect it'd be the same with this game.

Not entirely. Any Free-To-Play games will not require an online subscription. Essentially Sony is leaving it up to the developers of free-to-play games and it's up to developers whether they consider themselves free-to-play or not.

I think that's mainly because there are so many pure PvE players that burn through end-game content in a matter of a week, no matter how difficult it is. They need to constantly roll out more end-game PvE content to keep those guys happy and because PvP has a lot more replayability than PvE and therefore new content for PvP keeps people happier for longer.

I think that when this game comes out, PvP people will be disappointed at first because they won't have everything implemented yet. Then again, maybe that's another reason for the estimate being pushed back.

Yeah, not a real confirmation, but it is interesting that the F2P games mentioned as not needing PS+ are the same type of game (MMO).

Pretty sure pay model threads are one of the circles of hell, and I am trapped in it.

i.e. YAPT. We already had YAFLT (Yet another faction lock thread). Let's keep going people!

I'm curious: What's the monthly sub on that circle, and does my Live/PSN membership entitle me to a discount?

/hijack

In response to your last comment in "that other thread", for once we are in complete and utter agreement. We may be in different circles, but we are both in Hell....

There's very little point in reading in between the lines when it comes down to interviews from E3 this year because of the bang the new consoles have made, especially with their change in business models. There are still some grey spots around the model of MMOs and Sony's multiplayer model. A lot of the public have got the wrong end of the stick believing that you need to have PSN+ to play any and all online modes and that spillage of misinformation is certainly not something that ends when it comes to developers and representatives, we heard about how Major Nelson "mistook" MGS5 as a Xbox One exclusive title.

You'll be better off just putting this topic to one side and wait for the official news from gamesas than it would be to put up newspaper clipping on a corkboard and link them together with lots of string and potentially losing your sanity at the same time.

Sigh! No official announcement means that it is probably still under discussion with Zenimax. If they dont know for certain why to people post as if they do know for certain? It is kinda foolish.

Your clairvoyance spell is faulty sir, please take it back for a full refund

And published by Sony Computer Entertainment.

To be sorta on topic, can anyone explain this to me? Why would PS or MS not require a sub for a F2P game, but require it for a P2P game, given that they don't own/control the games?

FTR when I say I have a Xbox, I mean that literally. Other than the boy's Wii, no other console experience.

I've never known a free to play game that was coy about it's payment model in advance. It's a selling point and developers of such games like to sing 'it's free!' from the rooftops.

If it was going to be free to play, they would have told us by now. The only reason to be mum about your payment model is that you know it will turn off a lot of potential players and you want to string them along and keep them interested, hoping that after a year of being hyped about it, they will bite the bullet and get the subscription.

One reason may be because requiring it for F2P games would logically mean requiring it for the various multiplayer modes on first-person shooters, where the matches are frequently shorter than an MMO session. By requiring it for a game with an ongoing cost, they can turn an additional profit by claiming it covers the added cost of upkeep on their network hardware. At least, that's one way to view it.

Except for Warframe and Blacklight:Retribution